Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

You know what I would like to see here once in a while ?

CTer: "Here's why I think that <insert CT> is true"
Skeptics: "Here's why what you presented is wrong"
CTer: "OK, what about this ?"
Skeptics: "This is also wrong."
CTer: "Humm... and this ?"
Skeptics: "Also."
CTer: "Well, damn. I guess I've been wrong about this all along. Thanks !"

Robert Harris said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof. Not even by saying that we still have one. Sorry, that's just the way it works.

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.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Ours has been presented and the burden of proof met. Now it's time for you to step up to the plate and present your competing alternative hypothesis and meet your own burden of proof. It really is that simple.

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

Click to expand...

A good thing that isn't what was being discussed then. Not sure why you even mentioned it.

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.

Click to expand...

Ours is done and burden of proof has been met. Now it's your turn. What is your competing alternative hypothesis? You may either do as you are instructed or you may remain silent, your choice.

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

Click to expand...

Who is this "we", kemo sabe?

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

Click to expand...

If you refuse to state your alternative hypothesis, why are you wasting your 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".

Click to expand...

It was the part where you claim that it sounds crazy that set off alarm bells. I was giving you a helpful suggestion about how to temper it. You are under no obligation to follow my suggestion.

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

Click to expand...

For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason that you can't state your hypothesis simply and plainly here. Why so defensive and coy? It's as if you're doing the same thing that every other CTist does.

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

Click to expand...

So you've done the same thing elsewhere of being coy about plainly stating your alternative hypothesis and left people to guess what it is?

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

Click to expand...

Or longer, doesn't really matter. No other CTist has ever presented an alternative hypothesis that addresses the preponderance of evidence. Who knows, you might be the first ever! Just think of it, a CTist who matters!

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

Click to expand...

No, we don't need to understand that first.

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.

Click to expand...

First, we need to understand what bullet did.

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

Click to expand...

LOL. Yes, we should start with our conclusion. Totally unlike every other CTist.

The next problem

These are the reactions to the apparent shot at frame 285.



Each of those reactions began in the range of 290-292, or within the same 1/6th of one second.

That's not surprising, since Oswald's rifle was tested by the HSCA and proven to generate a 130 decibel shock wave, emanating directly from the bullet, followed almost instantly by a muzzle blast that was almost as loud. Other rifles are 2-3 times louder than Oswald's.

Of course, if Oswald fired all the shots, we would expect the limo passengers to have been exposed to the loudest and most startling sound levels when the earliest shots were fired. So why do we see no reactions then that are even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313??

There were certainly reactions, but they were spread out over roughly 100 frames. Why don't we see anyone ducking? Why doesn't Greer spin around like he did following 285 and 313 - so fast that some alterationists thought his turns were humanly impossible?

Even more troubling, is the fact that "most" of the witnesses who commented on the spacing of the shots, said they only heard one, prior to the very end of the attack, when they heard the closely bunched pair that could only have been the shots at 285 and 313.

I have a very hard time with a one-early-shot theory, but even if there were only one, shouldn't it have startled the limo passengers at least as much as they were startled by the final two shots??

If you have read the article I linked, then you know that John Connally testified that he clearly heard the first shot, which was undoubtedly, the one at 150-160. But he only "felt" the second. Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

It certainly didn't come from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Robert Harris said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wheeeeee, away we go with the ad homs again. Don't do that. Your agreement with the MA included an undertaking not to do so. Stoppit.

Robert Harris said:

Your theory is in the minority.

Click to expand...

Lying through your teeth isn't the right way to begin your stay here, grasshopper.

You conspirationists are so smart, right ? First you make up nonsense theories that no one believe in, patting yourselves on the back for discovering clues that apparently no one else has found. Then you realise that that's stupid, so you instead assume that the clues were found but suppressed, basically concluding that everybody is in on the conspiracy except you. And now you switch it up and claim that you're the majority, which circles right back to the initial problem.

Not that smart, it seems.

Robert Harris said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh really?

You will note that I have pointed out where your so-called evidence is nonsense.

You will note where I have established my credentials an an accredited engineer.

You will note where you have utterly failed to do similar.

You will note that I have not made any report at all to the mods despite your scurrillous posts, not a single one. Ask them. I dare you. You won't do that either.

Robert is asserting there was a shot about 1.5 seconds before the head shot.
He is saying it would be impossible to cycle the gun and fire accurately in this time (hence his point about the car slowing down meaning Oswald would have not have rushed the final shot).

We've had the shot timing one here before...

RoboTimbo said:

No, you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof. Not even by saying that we still have one. Sorry, that's just the way it works.

Click to expand...

Then we need to fix the "way it works".

I will present my case and you may present yours, if you wish.

If you refuse to do that, then you are only confirming that you have no evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone. But everyone already knows that, so I guess it doesn't matter.

What baffles me though, is why you guys are so much more concerned about your artificial rules than you are about getting to the truth of this thing.

Instead of ranting on and on about these ridiculous rules, why don't you address the evidence I presented? Let's talk about when the shots were fired and whether it was possible for Oswald to have fired all of them.

If it was not, then the conspiracy debate is over.

I just posted more evidence related to the early shots and the fact that one of them wasn't heard by almost anyone, while neither of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions like the ones we see following the shots at 285 and 313.

Perhaps you would prefer to make up another silly rule so that you don't have to deal with reason and empirical evidence, but I do hope for your own edification, that you address these issues and give them some objective thought.

Robert Harris said:

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

Click to expand...

I normally just lurk here, but...


A basic question.

If LHO did not fire all the shots, tell us how many he did fire and where the other shot or shots were fired from. No even who fired the other shots but where.

Robert Harris said:

These are the reactions to the apparent shot at frame 285.

Click to expand...

Frame rate please. You really don't know why that is important, do you?

Robert Harris said:

Each of those reactions began in the range of 290-292, or within the same 1/6th of one second.

Click to expand...

Is it? You must know what the frame rate is so. What is the frame rate?

Robert Harris said:

That's not surprising, since Oswald's rifle was tested by the HSCA and proven to generate a 130 decibel shock wave, emanating directly from the bullet, followed almost instantly by a muzzle blast that was almost as loud. Other rifles are 2-3 times louder than Oswald's.

Click to expand...

Echos. How do they even exist?

Robert Harris said:

Of course, if Oswald fired all the shots, we would expect the limo passengers to have been exposed to the loudest and most startling sound levels when the earliest shots were fired. So why do we see no reactions then that are even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313??

There were certainly reactions, but they were spread out over roughly 100 frames. Why don't we see anyone ducking? Why doesn't Greer spin around like he did following 285 and 313 - so fast that some alterationists thought his turns were humanly impossible?

Even more troubling, is the fact that "most" of the witnesses who commented on the spacing of the shots, said they only heard one, prior to the very end of the attack, when they heard the closely bunched pair that could only have been the shots at 285 and 313.

I have a very hard time with a one-early-shot theory, but even if there were only one, shouldn't it have startled the limo passengers at least as much as they were startled by the final two shots??

If you have read the article I linked, then you know that John Connelly testified that he clearly heard the first shot, which was undoubtedly, the one at 150-160. But he only "felt" the second. Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

It certainly didn't come from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Click to expand...

Groundhog day. What occurs when a poster can't be bothered reading the thread in which they are posting. I mean seriously, you can't even manage to spell the guy's name right.

Tolls said:

Robert is asserting there was a shot about 1.5 seconds before the head shot.
He is saying it would be impossible to cycle the gun and fire accurately in this time (hence his point about the car slowing down meaning Oswald would have not have rushed the final shot).

We've had the shot timing one here before...

Click to expand...

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "shot timing", when you know it's a totally different argument that I am presenting?

C'mon guys. Do you think Richard Dawkins would use tactics like this to "win" a debate?

Do you think he would make up all kinds of silly rules in order to give himself an advantage over his adversaries??

I am showing you facts and evidence that no one else has shown you. Let's deal with it objectively and honestly. Is that asking too much?

Robert Harris said:

Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

Click to expand...

Mrs Connally heard three shots, according to her Warren Commission testimony.

Pooneil said:

I normally just lurk here, but...


A basic question.

If LHO did not fire all the shots, tell us how many he did fire and where the other shot or shots were fired from. No even who fired the other shots but where.

Click to expand...

Excellent question.

He couldn't have fired more than one.

Only one of the early shots was heard by most witnesses and neither of them provoked visible startle reactions. So neither of them could have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle.

He might have fired either the shot at 285 or the one at 313, but he couldn't have fired both. They were too close together.

Robert Harris said:

He couldn't have fired more than one.

Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated this.

Wasn't there a witness on the 5th floor of the SBD, directly below LHO, who heard three shots that went

Bang
Click-click
Bang
Click-click
Bang

??

ETA: Yep, Harold Norman. He heard the bolt and the shells hitting the floor. According to Bonnie Ray Williams, Norman said he heard hit while the shooter was shooting.

Amazingly, the three people sitting in the 5th floor window, right below LHO, all heard 3 shots from that location above them. Who cares what someone down the street says, these were the closest to the location, and they all are in agreement with what they heard.

There were three shots from the same location of the SBD. The testimony is clear.

Robert Harris said:

These are the reactions to the apparent shot at frame 285.

Each of those reactions began in the range of 290-292, or within the same 1/6th of one second.

Click to expand...

As someone who hasn't spent years going around and around analysing the Zapruder film, my main impression is that none of the three people you say "all began to duck" actually ducks. The two women each lean in toward their respective husbands and the secret service agent, having turned around in his seat, turns back again. None of them act in a way that suggests to me they are flinching at a startling sound and none of them was sitting still up until the moment you have selected to claim they all began moving in unison. For that matter, it doesn't seem obvious to me that the photographer shook his camera in a way that indicates he flinched either.

Robert Harris said:

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "shot timing", when you know it's a totally different argument that I am presenting?

Click to expand...

Well, you are trying to show that the timing of the second and third shots were closer together than normally considered. I was simply trying to tie that to your point about the slowing down of the limo. At the time you hadn't put forward your other assertion of the quiet second shot.

So yes, parts of your argument are about the shot timing, specifically the second shot. Which we have covered here before.

Robert Harris said:

Only one of the early shots was heard by most witnesses and neither of them provoked visible startle reactions. So neither of them could have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle.

Click to expand...

As I said above, Mrs Connally heard three.

Also I think a majority of ear witnesses heard three.

Tolls said:

Mrs Connally heard three shots, according to her Warren Commission testimony.

Click to expand...

YES!

So did most other witnesses. They heard the shot at app. 150-160, followed by the shots at the end, at 285 and 313. She never heard the 223 shot, which wounded John Connally and JFK, and she thought that the 285 shot was the one that hit her husband.

In their testimonies, she and John had one important disagreement. She said,

I recall John saying "Oh, no, no, no, no". Then there was a second shot, and it hit John...

But her husband knew better, since he was the one who got shot.

...I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no"

The 223 shot was silent or very close to silent. No one in the limo heard. JBC only "felt" it.

Nellie Connally was an incredibly valuable witness - not because she was any more reliable than the others, but because we can see her in the Zfilm and match up her actions with her testimony. I do that in this brief presentation.

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

Robert Harris said:

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "shot timing", when you know it's a totally different argument that I am presenting?

Click to expand...

I might be, yet somehow you fail to present anything.

Robert Harris said:

C'mon guys. Do you think Richard Dawkins would use tactics like this to "win" a debate?

Click to expand...

Who? Richard Who?

Robert Harris said:

Do you think he would make up all kinds of silly rules in order to give himself an advantage over his adversaries??

Click to expand...

No idea. What rules does this Dick character make?

Robert Harris said:

I am showing you facts and evidence that no one else has shown you. Let's deal with it objectively and honestly. Is that asking too much?

Click to expand...

Yet oddly you are unable to show any facts or evidence. Why is that?

Mr. Harris, any chance at all you'll get around to answering the question with respect your contention that there were elements of the assassination that needed there to be an accomplice?