Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Tolls]

What you mean is, that unlike most people, you have not seen evidence that convinces you. Isn't that correct?

No, I mean exactly what I said.

That none of the evidence for a conspiracy has stood up, and we have seen it all here. Many of us have been on this thread for quite some time now, in however many prior incarnations it's had.

 

[theprestige]

No, I need to get to 15 posts before I can link a URL.

URLs can be included in any post by a new member here, including their very first. Several obvious and intuitive methods spring to mind, such this one:

www.example.com/my/best/evidence

 

[Robert Harris]

What?

Okay, maybe I'm having a problem comprehending your argument.

It looked to me as if you was trying to make a claim that hitting the target in the time available was difficult if not impossible.

You then went on to say that:



"Especially since the limo had slowed to about 8 mph"

So, he didn't rush because the limo had slowed, and so he got the fatal shot, but it's absurd to believe this?

WTF are you talking about?

One of the other guys has been researching me and discovered that I am arguing that shots were fired at app. frame 285 and 313, 1.5 seconds apart.

So, he has been trying to claim that Oswald could have fired those shots, which would mean that he outperformed a multitude of FBI and HSCA experts who without exception, could not fire that rapidly and accurately.

In addition to the absurdity of believing Oswald fired that rapidly, I have pointed out that he had no reason to rush, since the limo was slowing down at 313. Got it?

Please check out the article I just linked.

 

[abaddon]

UOTE

I'm afraid it does. Would you like me to make a video for you, "proving" that the MC can be fired 50 times in 5 seconds?

Feel free. We both know you won't.

I did. How did you confirm that it was legitimate?

By interviewing the star.

And if it was, how many times did he hit the target?

5/6

And finally, even if he did outperform all of the HSCA and FBI shooters, how does that prove that Oswald could have done the same?

Because it isn't difficult despite which LHO missed 2 out of 3 shots.

Of course it is. Why are you changing the subject?

Am I?

This is not about the total time required to fire three shots.

Do you conceed then that 3 shots in the time available is easily sufficient?

It's about whether Oswald could have fired faster and more accurately than a multitude of FBI and HSCA experts.

Citation needed. Second time of asking.

And in the outrageously unlikely possibility that he could,

Nothing outrageous about it. It is entirely mundane. It is CT proponents who like to dress it up as a freakish achievement.

why would he?

Lone nutters do these things to this very day.

The limo was slowing down then.

Making the shot even easier, and?

He had no reason to rush and the result of that shot, tells us rather convincingly that he didn't.

Correct. He had no need to rush, so he didn't. In the time available, he could have sprayed 7 bullets, but he chose to take his time and discharged the weapon only three times two of which missed.

This is not about a "spat". It's about a raving lunatic who was fanatical about the LN theory, to the point that he was willing to threaten violence to support it.

I will ask him. Wanna bet how different his version of events is?

And this is your star witness.

Nope. It physically proves that the weapon can be cycled at sufficient speed that LHO would have no difficulty at all in discharging it in the available time. It doesn't matter who is behind the trigger, only that there is no difficulty in performing the requisite action.

You got me there.

Concession of an absence of affirmative evidence noted.

Tell me "Adaddon", on a scale of 1-10, exactly how objective do you think you are?

I am a full on ten sure that intentionally incorrect spelling of a members username will garner you a level of mod attention. I recommend that you don't do it. Had you spelled it correctly, your super research skillz would have revealed the origin of said handle. The fact that you can't spell it, let alone find it's origins, let alone find the very thread on this very forum where members discuss their handles and where they came from does not fill me with confidence about your ability to research events in Dealey Plaza.

I haven't relocated the whole report yet, but I have this for you. It is laughably ironic, that they are claiming success in supporting their acoustic evidence, even though every one of their shooters failed every single time, firing with both the scope and with the scope off.

It is apparently DIFFICULT, but not
*impossible--at least with only minimal practice
*with the firearm used--to fire 3 shots, at least
*two of which score "kills," with an elapsed time
*of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even
*though in the limited testing conducted, NO SHOOTER
*ACHIEVED THIS DEGREE OF PROFICIENCY.
*(8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)

Then this video is totally imaginary, right?
And that is just one of many all of which demonstrate that there is nothing remarkable about it.

Keep in mind, that they were firing at oversized, stationary targets, which were closer to the shooter than the alleged sniper's nest was to the limo at 313. That's because they were considering much earlier shots.

Wait, are you now claiming that such tests do not accurately represent the crime scene? Really?

It is less than ridiculous to think that Oswald outperformed all of these experts

Well, no. LHO performed worse than the experts scoring only one hit out of three shots.

and even if your Youtube "expert" is legit,

Not my expert, he simply proves that the operation of the weapon provides no obstacle to LHO acting alone. I don't care if he claims to be Pope Francis. The physical operation of the weapon is no obstacle.

he never proved that he could match a 313 strike with 1.5 seconds of reload time, did he?

6 divided by 5.1 is how much again?

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has fired a MC rifle that quickly and accurately, in over 50 years.

Then you simply have not looked. There are countless documentaries youboob videos, ballistic experts and so forth all of whom say it can be done easily.

But here is a question for you.

Nope. I will not wear this shoddy diversionary tactic.

Let's say that by some miracle, Oswald DID fire the shots at 285 and 313. Now you have one left.

In two words, "recording speed". What was the frame rate? Do you know? I do.

Are you going to claim that there was not a shot at 223, or that there was no shot prior to 223??

See above. What was the frame rate?

I agree with Posner, Bugliosi and pretty much every nutter on the planet that there were at least, two early shots, and like them, I see a great deal of visual evidence to confirm that.

Correction. You imagine evidence which nobody but you can see.

Are you claiming four shots now, or are you claiming that all of your friends are full of poop?

Four shots? Where on earth did you extract that from?

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I mean exactly what I said.

That none of the evidence for a conspiracy has stood up, and we have seen it all here. Many of us have been on this thread for quite some time now, in however many prior incarnations it's had.

You expressed an opinion - no more and no less.

And I have no idea how many good, bad or whatever conspiracy arguments have been presented here, but I do know that if I had a note from God, it would be pretty tough pitching it in this place, with 15 people jumping all over me. (I'm a lifelong atheist BTW).

But it's silly to bicker about burden of proof. Your theory is just one of many, and it is in a distinct minority.

And it's a moot question anyway, since I have already presented evidence that Oswald could not have fired both of the final shots.

Please read the article.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Patience grasshopper. We need to take issues one-at-a-time.

So you're choosing to be every other CTist. You really should read the rest of the thread to see how they fared.

But my conclusions are the product of the evidence. There will be no contradictions.

...said every other CTist.

It has??

Yes. You haven't met your burden of proof yet, though. When can we expect you to honestly post your entire alternative hypothesis so that it may be examined? Then you can start meeting your burden of proof.

Sorry, I didn't know that. Please tell me how it was proven that Oswald acted alone.

I know you don't believe it, just as every other CTist doesn't.

You do if you want to promote a particular theory, especially a minority theory that contradicts the government's latest investigation.

I doubt that he was.

And you won't present your alternative competing hypothesis which addresses all of the evidence so that we can know what exactly his role was. Just like every other CTist.

Read the article I recently linked. It will explain a lot of this.

This is not about the total time required to fire three shots.

Actually, it is, until you present some competing alternative hypothesis which can be examined on its merits.

There really is a great deal to this - too much to put into a single post. As we go along, I think you will understand.

I think we both understand that every other CTist is coy about presenting their own competing hypothesis.

 

[Robert Harris]

Feel free. We both know you won't.


By interviewing the star.

5/6

That is simply untrue.

Besides presenting the stupidest argument I have heard in 20 years in JFK forums and being continuously insulting, you aren't being truthful as well.

If you want to believe that Oswald fired one early shot and then two shots, 1.5 seconds apart, I wish you the best of luck. I have too many rational adversaries to deal with to waste time on you.

 

[Robert Harris]

So you're choosing to be every other CTist. You really should read the rest of the thread to see how they fared.


...said every other CTist.

You seem to want to attack me on the basis of what other people said. Are you really that bloodthirsty that you can't wait to see what I actually say?

Did you read the article I posted yet?

Please be sure you understand it and don't imagine me saying something entirely different.

 

[Robert Harris]

URLs can be included in any post by a new member here, including their very first. Several obvious and intuitive methods spring to mind, such this one:

Thanks for the tip, but I already passed #15.

 

[abaddon]

That is simply untrue.

Accusation of intentional lying. Ad hom. Assumes facts not in evidence. Breaches the membership agreement you signed up to when you joined this board.

Besides presenting the stupidest argument I have heard in 20 years in JFK forums

Ad hom. Adress the argument not the arguer. You agreed to that when you signed the MA, remember?

and being continuously insulting, you aren't being truthful as well.

Citation needed. I have addressed your arguments and in no way you personally.

If you want to believe that Oswald fired one early shot and then two shots, 1.5 seconds apart, I wish you the best of luck. I have too many rational adversaries to deal with to waste time on you.

Dodge noted.

 

[abaddon]

Thanks for the tip, but I already passed #15.

There is, of course, an obvious directly insulting reposte. Is that what you are seeking?

 

[BStrong]

Perhaps we could answer questions in the order they are asked.

Do you think Oswald acted alone and if so, why?

Thank you for the warm welcome, BTW.

I do hope however, that we can refrain from stereotyping our adversaries.

I probably agree with you on more particular issues than I do with most conspiracy advocates, and I find it insulting to be accused of sharing the worst traits of others, simple because I agree that Oswald did not act alone.

Welcome to the forum.

I believe LHO acted on his own.

If you have questions wrt the assassination, reading through this or one of the other JFK assassination threads there's a wealth of information here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You seem to want to attack me on the basis of what other people said. Are you really that bloodthirsty that you can't wait to see what I actually say?

What an ...odd... thing to say. I'm comparing your behavior to the behavior of others, pointing out that you're doing exactly what you were advised that other CTists do and why it's a failed proposition. I asked a few questions and you became very defensive, demanding that others defend the conventional narrative (shifting the burden of proof), just as every other CTist does. You needn't become so defensive about it.

You were advised to go back and read some of the previous thread. This switching the burden of proof attempt and how CTists style themselves as a defense team, to exonerate Oswald, has been well trodden ground. Each new CTist follows the same form, just as my post you first replied to described. It's gone on for thousands of posts and years of time. Now we just want to cut to the chase. The CTist presents their hypothesis and we examine it.

Did you read the article I posted yet?

I skimmed it. I would edit out the part at the beginning where you say (paraphrased, not going back to read it again) "The following will seem crazy but..." It seems that you're positing additional phantom shots.

Please be sure you understand it and don't imagine me saying something entirely different.

I don't want to imagine you saying something different. I want you to present your hypothesis here so that nobody is accused of straw-manning your position. If you don't present your alternative competing hypothesis, we're simply left to guess at what it is. No need to be coy or defensive about it.

 

[JayUtah]

Why exactly, is a "list of names" required?

Because you need a testable alternative.

OK, I read 'em and your argument still makes no sense at all to me.

Then you're not likely to do well in this thread.

Why would you accuse me of cherry picking when I stated that the FBI and HSCA conducted tests...

Because those entities still concluded Oswald did it. If you quote one of their findings outside the context of their entire findings, you're cherry picking. Yes, the HSCA concluded it was "a conspiracy," but they studied the prevailing conspiracy theories of the day and could find no evidence for them. While they inferred from the acoustic evidence that other shots may have been fired, they concluded that all the shots that hit Kennedy were fired by Oswald. That means they took the alleged proof that Oswald couldn't have fired that fast, and evaluated them in the context of all the other evidence. That's what we mean by consilience.

BTW, have you found evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

This is the part where you try to change the burden of proof. In addition, you've changed the question. "Isolates Oswald" is not the question. "Who killed Kennedy?" is the question. So far there is a ton of evidence in favor of Oswald, and very little evidence in favor of anyone else -- in addition to or in place of Oswald.

Perhaps you could email me a list of instructions. I will certainly do my best to follow them.

We've collected our wisdom in this rather lengthy thread, which I will admonish you a third time to read before participating in. I seriously hope you do, because you will be able to see what kinds of arguments work and what kinds don't.

As a skeptic myself, I find it hard to accept that you know in advance, what I am going to say.

Every single JFK conspiracy theorist makes the same arguments in the same way, including you, below in this thread. In fact, every conspiracy theorist in every genre makes the same patterned argument. How do I know this? I've listened to many, many conspiracy theories. You don't need psychic powers to make observations and use them to predict future behavior.

Why don't you wait and see what I have to say before you start swinging your ball bat?

Or I can just read the remainder of your post here, in which you violate a number of my caveats straight off the line.

Not by honest members of the forum.

Sorry, you don't get to call people "dishonest" for trying to hold you to the same standard of proof you propose to impose on the conventional narrative.

Even without an alternative theory, it would be possible to prove that Oswald didn't act alone.

This is the part where you set the bar absurdly low for yourself. We want to know if you can better solve the crime than the conventional narrative. You just want to pick away at someone else's work.

For example ... that would constitute proof that Oswald didn't fire all the shots.

No, it's an inference piled on top of a faulty generalization.

As it happens however, I have a very strong, alternative theory, but that is not the critical issue.

Yes it is.

You seem to be trying to raise the bar, waaay higher than it belongs. That is not how critical thinkers do things.

Yes, it is. We hold claims to high standards, especially claims that go against how most people conclude who have been exposed to the same evidence. This is the part where you evaluate the conventional narrative against one standard and then set a very much lower standard for yourself.

I certainly hope you are wrong about that. I seriously doubt that most skeptics think that way.

They do. Read the thread.

They do not make up all kinds of rules and restrictions...

These are not arbitrary, made-up rules. As you see when you read the thread, we simply attempt to hold conspiracy theories to the same standard of proof their proponents impose upon the conventional narrative. In all but a few cases, the "rules and restrictions" are those which the conspiracy proponents have set. We simply apply them fairly. As we can see by reading your posts, you don't seem to believe in a fair treatment among competing theories. You seem to want a lower bar set for your theory.

ONE SIMPLE FACT can prove a theory wrong - your theory, mine, anyone's.

No, that's not critical thinking. The remainder of the facts that supported the original theory still have to be explained. That's the part conspiracy theorists miss, and why historians don't take them seriously. One adverse fact does not break the consilience of evidence otherwise. It may alter it and require a revision, but you're simply preaching the same old gospel as every conspiracy theorist ever. You want to cherry-pick a few outlying facts and ignore the bulk of evidence. If you were to read the thread, you'd discover how badly that has worked for your predecessors.

With all due respect sir, your claim does not improve with repetition.

Nor does yours. Do you have any idea how many times in the past few years the "Oswald can't have fired that fast" claim has been discussed?

What exactly, is the best evidence you have seen, which isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is becoming more frantic.

No I don't. Forget that most people, most researchers, and the head of the HSCA believe this was a conspiracy. Forget that you represent a very small minority.

We have discussed the findings of the HSCA here at length. The public-opinion polls have been discussed here at length too.

Read the thread.

My burden of proof is no greater than yours.

Then carry it.

And since you cannot prove that Oswald acted alone, you aren't getting off to a very impressive start.

Standard shell game. You announce that you have a solid theory, but you refuse to present it. You announce straight off the bat that the entire discussion must be reset for your benefit and convenience, and you make a vague handwaving reference to a topic that's been discussed already several times at length. And you try to shift the burden onto your critics.

The prevailing conclusion is as it has been for fifty years. The evidence has been out there for fifty years in most cases. It was there before I participated in the discussion. It will be there long after I'm dead. It needs no further affirmative case made for it. It is this conclusion and its attendant evidence that you are trying desperately to undermine, so you know what it is and where it is. Let's dispense with the silly standard rhetorical games. You say "No, I have a different theory based on my belief that Oswald can't have fired his rifle that fast." Then you say, "And before I even present it, you must prove my theory wrong."

OK, with all due respect, I've had enough phony rules to last a lifetime.

And most conspiracy theorists have had a lifetime of being roundly ignored by serious historians, mostly because they want to reinvent the practice of historical inquiry to suit their own needs. I'm simply telling you why you're categorically ignored. If you don't care to hear it, then I guess that's your business. But the "You must prove my theory wrong" approach doesn't bode well.

 

[BStrong]

Who exactly, fired those shots? What is his name?

And how did he corroborate his time?

I encountered "Mag30th" several years ago. He threatened to send his relatives down to Florida to beat me up, and in another post said he wanted to jam his rifle up my rectum.

I reported him to both the Los Angeles and Pinellas county police.

He's a bonafied lunatic.

Why would you cite something like this as "evidence", especially since, we have legitimate, verified tests by the FBI and the HSCA??

The HSCA recruited 8 sharpshooters from the Washington DC police department,who along with 2 others, attempted to fire an accurate shot within 1.66 seconds. They tried repeatedly, firing with and without the scope, but they failed every time.

And they were firing at oversized targets, considerably closer to them than the limo was to Oswald at frame 313.

They DID fire faster when they reloaded and fired blindly, with no attempt to acquire a target, but it is absurd to believe that Oswald or anyone else, fired the shot at 313, the one perfect shot of the day, at the greatest distance, without aiming, especially since the limo had slowed to about 8 mph at that point.

FBI supervisor Frasier testified that when he brought his time down to 2.3 seconds, he was firing,

"as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think."

Keep in mind too, that these guys tried over and over and over again to bring their time down. The guy who fired the 313 shot, only had ONE chance. It is just insane to think that Oswald could have outperformed all of them.

Howard Donahue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

Donahue first became interested in the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after being invited to participate in a recreation of the shooting as one of eleven invited marksmen and sharpshooters.[2] He demonstrated that it would not have been possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired three shots in the time specified by the Warren Commission, and was the only one of the eleven to better the 5.6 second window. However the experience highlighted to Donahue other concerns regarding the Warren report, and in particular the fact that the testimony of ballistics experts seemed to have been completely omitted from the Commission's evidence gathering

Please note that Donahue developed his own theory about the assassination, that a SS agent in the trailing vehicle shot JFK w/ an AR 15, which is another load of CT *********, but what you represent as an impossibility is nothing of the sort.

LHO had the building blocks of marksmanship - first in hunting w/ his older brother and later professional instruction in the Corps.

 

[Robert Harris]

What an ...odd... thing to say. I'm comparing your behavior to the behavior of others, pointing out that you're doing exactly what you were advised that other CTists do and why it's a failed proposition. I asked a few questions and you became very defensive, demanding that others defend the conventional narrative (shifting the burden of proof), just as every other CTist does. You needn't become so defensive about it.

I think I do. I said, "Patience grasshopper. We need to take issues one-at-a-time."

And you said that's what all the CT's say. Perhaps you could cite a few of them verbatim, saying something like that.

Breaking a moderately complex issue like this into sections is not exactly unusual. It's what pretty much every textbook on the planet does. Why in holy hell would you see that as a sin?

You seem to be desperate to find something to attack, even if it's things I never said or implied.

You were advised to go back and read some of the previous thread. This switching the burden of proof attempt and how CTists style themselves as a defense team, to exonerate Oswald, has been well trodden ground.

I did not "switch" the burden of proof. It is shared and you have no right to claim that it is my burden only. Your theory is in the minority. It contradicts the government's latest investigation and you can't even prove that Oswald acted alone.

You don't shed your obligations simply by saying you do. We both present our analyses and the facts and evidence that support them. It really is that simple.

Each new CTist follows the same form

Well of course. We all dress the same, look the same and have the same bad table manners.

Stereotyping is a really lame way to avoid the burden of dealing the with evidence.

just as my post you first replied to described. It's gone on for thousands of posts and years of time.

I couldn't care less what bad habits you've picked up over the years.

I will present my evidence and you present yours. If you have none, then feel free to remain silent, but I will be reminding you.

Now we just want to cut to the chase. The CTist presents their hypothesis and we examine it.

Nothing wrong with that, but we will be evaluating your theory as well.

I skimmed it.

If you refuse to properly examine the evidence I present then why are you wasting my time?

And your inability to read the complete article should be setting off all kinds of alarms, suggesting that you might not be objective enough to call yourself a "skeptic".

I don't want to imagine you saying something different. I want you to present your hypothesis here

To save my life, I cannot think of a reason why you cannot read it where it is.

so that nobody is accused of straw-manning your position.

That's not a problem. I expect to be misrepresented.

If you don't present your alternative competing hypothesis, we're simply left to guess at what it is.

No, you're left to wait a day or two.

First, we need to understand that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.

Second, we need to understand that CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded John Connally and probably, JFK. I will prove that beyond any possible doubt.

It is important to first realize that this WAS a conspiracy, before we talk about who was behind it.

 

[abaddon]

Good grief.

Jay said most of what I would say, but if I could summarise. This is a stupid notion. Sorry, but my inner engineer tells me that this idea is utterly daft. Furthermore, this daft idea wastes the time of experts who actually know what they are talking about. Is that an objective? Please answer the question about your idea.

 

[Robert Harris]

Howard Donahue:

No sir.

Donahue demonstrated that he could fire three shots in 5.6 seconds. The first doesn't count, so he required 2.8 seconds per shot.

That is not at all the same as firing the fatal headshot with no more than 1.5 seconds, which would be required to fire shots at 285 and 313. In fact, Donahue was taking almost twice that amount of time.

Please read the article I linked. It explains all this in detail.

 

[Robert Harris]

Good grief.

Jay said most of what I would say, but if I could summarise. This is a stupid notion. Sorry, but my inner engineer tells me that this idea is utterly daft. Furthermore, this daft idea wastes the time of experts who actually know what they are talking about. Is that an objective? Please answer the question about your idea.

I already told you that I will not be replying to your posts.

You were not truthful when you said your anonymous Youtube "expert" hit his target 5 out of 6 times. Even he never claimed that.

Perhaps you can find someone else who will be impressed by your 1-----23 shooting theory but I am busy enough, debating with rational, honest adversaries.

 

[Belz...]

We don't presume anything. We evaluate the evidence.

And there's no evidence for a second shooter and plenty for Oswald's shots.

There is a great deal which requires an accomplice.

Spit it out.

I'm afraid it does. Would you like me to make a video for you, "proving" that the MC can be fired 50 times in 5 seconds?

Yes, I would. It doesn't matter what your name is, so long as you can back up that claim.

to demonstrate that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.

Firing three shots in that time is trivial. He even managed to miss once and kind of miss a second time.

But my conclusions are the product of the evidence. There will be no contradictions.

Oh, there will.