Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Greer - a key witness

Bill Greer, the driver of the President's limousine, is another five star witness. He was a Secret Service agent, trained to keep a sharp eye and ear out for trouble. And his testimony about the spacing of the shots was corroborated by the others in the limousine, as well as the large consensus of witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza.

More important however, is that we can see his reactions in the Zapruder film. It is the combination of what he said and what we see him do, that provides the most powerful corroborations of all.

Greer said he heard a "noise" after the limo turned onto Elm St. which he did not recognize as a gunshot,

"Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen."

He reported hearing no other shots, prior to the very end of the attack - more from his testimony.

"Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds."

And this is how he described the second and third shots that he heard,

"Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?

Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other"

It is easy to see Greer react to both of the shots at frames 285 and 312, in an identical manner - by spinning from the rear to the front at enormous speed - so fast, that some Warren Commission critics thought his turns were physically impossible (they weren't, as I was able to confirm). I posted this Zapruder film segment, to show Roy Kellerman ducking in reaction to each of the two shots, but you can just as easily, see Greer's reactions, spinning in perfect tandem with Kellerman ducking. (This animation needs to load and will only run properly, the second time it cycles.)

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

Dr. Luis Alvarez, a brilliant, Nobel prize winning physicist who analyzed the frames from the Zapruder film, determined that in his panic, Greer inadvertently lifted his foot from the gas, causing the limo to slow down. He also concluded that both Greer and Zapruder were reacting to a loud noise at precisely frame 285 which he speculated, was a siren. Today, pretty much everyone on both sides of the conspiracy debate, agrees that no sirens were heard then. And the witnesses, both in and out of the limo, made it very clear that the noise they were hearing, was a gunshot - not a siren.

But Greer made a statement which seems to contradict his testimony regarding the spacing of the shots. He said,

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally."

It's hard to be precise, but in the Zapruder film, we see him turn to his right to look to the rear at approximately frame 268-270, well before 285 and 313. If he heard a second shot earlier than that, the last two were certainly not "simultaneously, one behind the other", as he stated. So, which is correct?

In addition to the overwhelming consensus of the other witnesses, Greer provides us with conclusive evidence to resolve this issue. As we can easily see in the Zapruder film, he actually turned to the rear twice - once before and once after frame 285. So either way, he did as he said, turning "after I heard the second one". But the clincher comes in this paragraph,

"The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it."

Greer's statement that he was turned around when he heard that second shot, makes it easy to determine whether he was hearing a shot at 223 or at 285, the two candidates for the second shot that he was referring to. Although his face is a bit indistinct then, it is easy to see from the position of his tie, that at 223, he was still turned to the front.

http://jfkhistory.com/greer223.gif

But at 285, he is indeed, turned to the rear, exactly as he said he was, at that time.

http://jfkhistory.com/greer285.png

The "concussion" he felt, could only have been the shock wave of the passing bullet, a phenomenon that is both heard and felt by people who are near the path of a supersonic bullet. There is just just no other plausible explanation for it.

It was in 1993 that another brilliant physicist, Dr. Michael Stroscio Phd, suggested that the noise at 285 was the shot that missed the President and went on to strike the pavement, causing James Tague's minor wound. Keep in mind, that the "angular acceleration" he describes at frame 290, was the reaction to the noise/shot at 285.

"Since the angular acceleration pattern beginning at frame 290 is consistent with that expected from a shot from the general direction of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) it may be that the jerking episode starting at frame 290 is associated with the bullet which caused the fragment that struck James Tague in the cheek.. a projectile moving to the west at the time of frame 290 would have likely caused a direct shock-wave interaction with A. Zapruder's camera; this is entirely consistent with the angular acceleration pattern commencing at frame 290."

And of course, Tague himself, said it was the second shot that caused him to be nicked by a tiny piece of debris.

"Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards."

So the evidence is quite consistent that the "concussion" Greer felt from the second shot, was the shock wave of the bullet that went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered, causing a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague, and a larger chunk of lead (perhaps the entire bullet core) to strike the Main St. curbing, where it left a smear of lead.

So, to sum things up so far. Greer said he heard a solitary, early noise, followed by a delay, and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack, pretty much like everyone else who commented on the shots, said.

And he felt the "concussion" of the passing bullet from the second shot. In the Zapruder film, I have found no visible evidence of anyone being hit at frame 285. So, it seems that this shot missed everyone, but did indeed, go on to cause Jame Tague to be nicked in the cheek, causing a tiny trickle of blood.

As one of my earliest critics, Cary Zeitlin used to say, "For a conspiracy theory to be true, it must be coherent. All of the pieces must fit.".

As we have seen repeatedly, he was absolutely correct.
 
Roy Kellerman - another key witness

Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the presidential limousine is by any standard, a five star witnesses - first, because he was a Secret Service agent whose job was, to keep and eye and an ear out for trouble.

Also, he was totally consistent with most of the other witnesses, who heard exactly the same spacing between the shots that he did.

Even more importantly, he was visible in the Zapruder film, so we can easily match up his testimony, with his actions. To put it another way, Kellerman did more than just tell us when shots were fired, he SHOWED us.

Kellerman stated that the time between the first noise/shot he heard and the second, was about 5 seconds.

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that. "

He described the final shots like this, "a flurry of shells come into the car" and "..it was like a double bang--bang, bang."

Even more convincing than his testimony, are his visible actions in the Zapruder film. During the attack, he ducked only twice - within a tiny fraction of a second following the shot at 285 and again, almost immediately following the headshot at 313. This animation makes that very clear (will not run properly until it loads and runs a second time).

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

And his reactions were simultaneous with reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally who dropped their heads at the same instant he did.

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

The three of them reacted simultaneously with Bill greer, who began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible. It was while he was spinning that in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas, slowing the limousine.

More corroboration comes from Dr. Luis Alvarez, who concluded that both Greer and Abraham Zapruder reacted to a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285. He said that Zapruder reacted at frames 290-291. The limo passengers and Greer, began to reaction at 290-292.

Watch that first animation again. Like Kellerman who ducked twice, Greer spun around from rear to front in perfect unison with Kellerman and the two ladies, as they dropped their heads.

In addition to ducking, Kellerman also exhibited other reactions which are textbook examples of startle responses to a loud noise. As he dropped his head, he raised his hand to shield his left ear, and hunched his shoulders upward and forward - exactly as described by Landis and Hunt, in their universally accepted textbooks.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

As we go through the other visible, surviving witnesses in the limo, we will find almost perfect consistency among them. Each, heard only one early shot and were oblivious to the shot at frame 223, even Governor Connally who was hit by it. And with only the exception of Gov. Connally, who was about to pass out then, each described two shots which were fired at the end of the attack, or well after frame 223.

That doesn't mean there was no shot at 223; there obviously was. But it was not heard by the large majority of witnesses, as the Warren Commission confirmed, or by anyone in the limousine. Oswald's rifle was proven to generate an ear shattering, 130 decibels at ground level. The idea that one of his shots went unnoticed is beyond ludicrous.

At the very least, that shot was not fired by Oswald.

One last point to cover a loose end - one might wonder how we can be sure that the solitary early shot that was audible, was not the one at 223, rather than the one just prior to that, probably circa 150-160.

Mrs. Kennedy, SA George Hickey and SA Paul Landis, all stated that they turned to their right, in reaction to the only early shot that they heard. In the Zapruder film, we can see each of them turning exactly as they described, well before frame 223. Ergo, the earlier shot was audible to them, but not the one at 223. Governor Connally reported exactly the same thing. He heard the earlier shot, but not the one at 223.

One might argue that someone heard the opposite, that 223 was audible to them, and 150-160 was not, but that seems highly improbable and even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that none of the early shots came from a high powered rifle.
 
The General Consensus of the Witnesses

The overwhelming consensus of the witnesses that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots, was that they heard a single shot or noise, followed by a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack. This is how the Warren Commission described them:

..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together.

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.

Of course, we all know that witnesses are not infallible, but any rational person has to wonder how so many could have made exactly the same mistake.

Specific examples:

Eugene Boone,

“And we heard what we thought to be a shot. And there seemed to be a pause between the first shot and the second shot and third shots..”

Motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood,

Mr. Belin. Were the three spaced equally distant?

Mr. Haygood. No..

Mr. Belin. Was one more close than the other one?

Mr. Haygood. The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close

Railroad superintendent Lee Bowers, who was well positioned fifteen feet above the ground in the railroad tower behind the Dealey Plaza pergola,

I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together.

Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell whose vehicle was in the motorcade, several cars behind the President,

There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession.

Mrs. Earle Cabell, who was riding with her husband,

It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot” and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a.." the second two shots rang out.

U.S. Congressman Ralph W. Yarborough,

..by my estimate - to me there seemed to be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots..

Secret Service agent William Lawson,

...I heard two more sharp reports, the second two were closer together than the first. There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig,

Mr. BELIN. Two or 3 seconds between the first and the second?

Mr. CRAIG. Well, it was quite a pause between there. It could have been a little longer.

Mr. BELIN. And what about between the second and third?

Mr. CRAIG. Not more than 2 seconds. It was, they were real rapid.

James N. Crawford,

..the second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one..

Motorcycle Police Officer, Marrion Baker,

..I looked up, as the shots started, I immediately looked up, you know. I was already facing ahead and I just kind of raised, I sighted up, and while I was looking-up, those other two shots came off.

Secret Service agent William Greer who drove the Presidential limousine,

The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other...

Secret Service agent George Hickey in the followup car immediately behind the President,

At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which... were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

Mary Woodward (reporter for the Dallas Morning News)

I heard a very loud noise. And I wasn't sure what it was at that point, and I turned to my friends and asked "what was that? Is some jerk shooting off firecrackers?' And then I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one.

Robert H. Jackson,

I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together...

Ladybird Johnson (wife of Lyndon Johnson),

..suddenly there was a sharp loud report; a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession.

Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front, passenger seat of the Presidential limousine, referring to the time between the last two shots he recalled,

Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? that is it.

Billy Lovelady, standing in the front entrance of the depository,

After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together.

Mary Ann Mitchell,

...there were three---the second and third being closer together than the first and second...

Joe R. Molina.

... Of course, the first shot was fired then there was an interval between the first and second longer than the second and third.

Luke Mooney.



Arnold Rowland,

The actual time between the reports I would say now, after having had time to consider the 6 seconds between the first and second report and two between the second and third.

Barbara Rowland,

...the second and third were closer than the first and second.

Edward Shields,

I heard one shot and then a pause and then this repetition - two shots right behind the other..

Special Agent Forrest V. Sorrels in the lead car,

There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.

Chief Sheriff's Deputy Allan Sweatt,

The President's caravan had just passed and about a minute or two, I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot...

Secret Service agent Warren W. Taylor,

In the instant that my left foot touched the ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots.

Bonnie Ray Williams

... I remembered three shots, because there was a pause between the first two shots... The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot..

Linda Willis, the fifteen year old daughter of Phil Willis (responding to a question about the number of shots),

Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.

Secret Service agent Rufus W. Youngblood,

There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot.
 
Yet despite these wall of text posts consisting of random statements, you have not even a clue as to where any shots were fired from other than from LHO. Stop complaining about this forum and put forward your own theory of what happened already.
 
Robert Harris said:
Dr. Luis Alvarez, a brilliant, Nobel prize winning physicist who analyzed the frames from the Zapruder film, determined that in his panic, Greer inadvertently lifted his foot from the gas, causing the limo to slow down.
Click to expand...

Did he reach that conclusion by observing that the people in the limo simultaneously sway forwards in synchrony with each other (or, to use your favoured term, "duck")?
 
Some of the photos taken during the assassination, have been firmly matched to specific Zapruder frames. Among the most important of these is a razor sharp picture taken by Associated Press photographer James Altgens, which was determined by experts to have been snapped at precisely, Zapruder frame 255.

This photo is extremely important, because a number of visible bystanders in it, described carrying out various actions which preceded two gunshots. But, a careful examination of the picture reveals that in each case, those actions, some of which required at least a couple of seconds to perform, had not yet been carried out. One of the clearest examples of this comes from Secret Service agent, Warren Taylor.

Special Agent Taylor was riding three cars behind the Presidential limousine in the Vice President's security car. At that time he was sitting in the back seat next to the left, rear door. Taylor stated in his original Treasury Dept. report that he first heard a single gunshot.

Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker... As a matter of course, I opened the door and prepared to get out of the car. In the instant that my left foot touched the ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots.

Taylor would have been just another of many witnesses reporting that the last two shots were bunched closely together, except for that marvelously clear photo by James Altgens. In it, we can see his status in the VP security vehicle, as he opens the door.

altgenswitnesses.jpg


It's easy to confirm Taylor's statement that he pushed the back door open (or further open), in response to the first gunshot, but it is equally easy to see that he has not yet stepped out of the car. He will not hear "two more bangs” until after his "left foot touched the pavement".

Therefore, at this point in time, at least according to Taylor, only one shot has been fired, and two more are yet to come. If he was wrong about this and the government's theories correct, then he made two errors. First, he overlooked an early, high-powered rifle shot, reporting only a single gunshot prior to stepping out of the car. Then he imagined a nonexistent shot at the end. But if he made those two errors, he was in good company. Almost everyone in Dealey Plaza who expressed an opinion about the spacing of the shots agreed with him.

Highway Patrolman Milton Wright

Another confirmation also comes from something we don't see in the Altgens photo. In that same picture (See figure 2) the vice Presidential security car in which Taylor rode, is the last visible vehicle in the motorcade. Altgens gave us a pretty good look at the intersection of Elm and Houston, including the stop light on the northwest corner. It's easy to see that at that instant no other cars have yet come into that intersection. The car Taylor rode in was followed by the Mayor's car, in which Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell and his wife were passengers. The driver of that car, Texas Highway Patrolman Milton Wright only reported hearing the last two shots that day, but he reported hearing both of them after he made the turn onto Elm Street,

The car I was driving had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection when I heard the first shot. When the second shot was fired I noticed a number of people running away from the Motorcade...

Wright will hear those two shots only after he turns onto Elm, and travels a short distance. But, the Altgens photo proves indisputably, that at Z255 he has not yet made that turn and has not yet entered the intersection of Houston and Elm. So, like Taylor, Wright confirms that at this point in time, two shots are yet to come, at least a second or two after that photo was taken.

Special Agent George Hickey

In that same photo, it's easy to see Secret Service agent George Hickey who was riding in the back seat of the President's followup car. This is from Hickey's original Treasury dept. report, which was among the most detailed, filed by the Secret Service.

After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it.. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

The Altgens photo makes it easy to confirm Hickey's claim that he stood and looked to the rear, in response to that first noise. It also makes it clear that Hickey was still turned to the rear as late as Z255, when the photo was taken, and just before he turned back to the front and then heard two gunshots.

Of equal importance is his confirmation that he only heard one report prior to turning around, and two afterward, coming in extreme "rapid succession”. As with other visible witnesses, it is easy to timestamp the first shot as prior to Z255, with at least, two to come after that point.

Special Agent Glen Bennett

Sometimes a witness's errors can be more enlightening than the parts of his story that are correct. Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who sat in the right-rear seat of the Secret Service followup car, next to Hickey, was cited by Gerald Posner in his book, Case Closed in support of Posner's theory that shots were fired at frames, 160, 224 and 312, placing the first two, noticeably closer together than the last two . Posner argued that Oswald first fired a missed shot, and then a second bullet that passed through both the President and Governor Connally at Z224. At first glance, Bennett seems to corroborate Posner,

At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.

At a glance, Bennett's words do seem to be consistent with Posner's theory. But besides contradicting most other witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day, this interpretation presented another problem. Why, if the first two shots were closer together than the last two, as Posner suggested, did Bennett say that the final shot "followed immediately” after the second? He certainly did not describe the earlier shots that way.

Another question arises from his claim that he "saw the shot hit the President” in the back. Obviously, the bullet in flight was not visible to the human eye, and the tiny 4x7 mm. hole would have initially, been invisible on Kennedy's dark suit coat. Of course, several seconds after the bullet struck, a bloodstain appeared, which would have made the wound much darker and easier to see. All of this prompted me to suspect that Bennett really heard pretty much the same shooting sequence that the other witnesses did.

Fortunately, it isn't necessary to wonder about this issue. James Altgens' famous photo once again, comes to our rescue. By blowing up the portion of the photo where Bennett can be seen in the security car, we can get a pretty good idea of his orientation. Although his face is partially blocked, Bennett's Secret Service standard issue, black necktie and white shirt make it clear that at Z255, he was still turned to his right, exactly as he is seen in photos and film, a few seconds earlier.

bennett.png


At Z255 therefore, Bennett is yet to turn toward the front and yet to hear those second and third shots. Like most of the other witnesses, the last two reports he heard were bunched closely together. And like Secret Service agent Taylor, Patrolman Wright, Secret Service agent Clint Hill, and others, Bennett proves that the final shots came well after Zapruder frame 255.

At this point, it should be clear that this large consensus of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were correct. Contrary to theories by either government experts or conspiracy buffs, there was only one audible shot fired, prior to Zapruder frame 255, to be followed by at least two closely spaced or "bunched” shots at the very end. It is almost unbelievable that after 40 years, experts on both sides of the controversy, still labor under the illusion that the pattern was exactly the opposite of what all these people told them.
 
Pooneil said:
Yet despite these wall of text posts consisting of random statements, you have not even a clue as to where any shots were fired from other than from LHO. Stop complaining about this forum and put forward your own theory of what happened already.
Click to expand...

The statements are hardly "random". The Warren Commission confirmed that "most" relevant witnesses said the same thing.

I went into great detail about the shooter locations in this presentation which I previously linked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
 
JayUtah said:
Shifting the burden of proof didn't work. Complaining about supposedly shabby treatment didn't work. Now it's time for the Gish gallop.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I no longer respond to ad hominem attacks.

When you have to resort to such tactics, you say much more about Jay Utah than you do about Robert Harris.
 
Robert Harris said:
I'm sorry but I no longer respond to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

You pretty much haven't responded to anything. You argue expecting your critics to play the role you've written out for them, and you get frustrated (and subsequently moderated) when they won't. You can't seem to deal with what your critics actually do and say.

Your arguments, however lengthily or repeatedly embellished, continue to boil down to assumptions, begged questions, and subjectivity. Those flaws will not continue to go away no matter how many words you pile around them.
 
BStrong said:
Was that before or after he shot JFK and Connally?
Click to expand...

Interesting. I also made a presentation on that subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0

Do you see the weakness in subjective observations?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. That's why I turned to the best scientists and the empirical evidence which proves that the nature and simultaneity of the reactions, confirmed that they were the result of those people being startled. This Zapruder film segment demonstrates the simultaneity.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

An example of the startle reactions comes from Roy Kellerman, who exhibited classical startle responses that are straight out of textbook. Have you seen this brief presentation yet?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
Totally never expected to see Robert post walls of text and stop responding to any of the outstanding questions. Big surprise there.
Click to expand...

I already stated that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks. I do evidence and I do facts.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.
 
JayUtah said:
You pretty much haven't responded to anything. You argue expecting your critics to play the role you've written out for them, and you get frustrated (and subsequently moderated) when they won't. You can't seem to deal with what your critics actually do and say.
Click to expand...

Every sentence you just wrote, contains either "you" or "your". I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

Your arguments, however lengthily or repeatedly embellished, continue to boil down to assumptions, begged questions, and subjectivity.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I only talk about the facts and evidence.

Those flaws will not continue to go away no matter how many words you pile around them.
Click to expand...

My "flaws" are not the issue. The issue is the question of whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
 
Robert Harris said:
I find it amazing how emotional people get over this crime.
Click to expand...

Please point to any emotional reaction to your posts, in this thread.

But the evidence I have found, suggests that the attack was carried out by several thugs rather than one.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. That is _your_ interpretation, but aside from your own say-so, you have given no reason to anyone to agree with your conclusion. It's sad that you don't see that, but that's what it is. This is a common problem with laymen who try to analyse data that should be left to professionals -- professionals who, I would like to point out, disagree with you.

In fact, it demonstrates that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald used, could not possibly have accounted for all the shots.
Click to expand...

And yet it has.

This forum was supposed to provide an opportunity to present facts and evidence which would be objectively and fairly judged, and I think several people have tried to do that. But some, and by far, the loudest have acted much more like blind advocates for the lone nut theory than anything approaching an objective evaluation.
Click to expand...

What has actually happened is that, unlike your previous attempts at CT sites which are receptive to your kind of thinking, the people here require a much higher standard of evidence, one which you cannot provide. I submit that the emotional person here is you, feeling frustration that you're not getting the traction that you expected, here. Trust me, if you can get your act together and present your case in an objective fashion that does not rely on your personal biases, people will notice, and the conversation will get far more productive for all.

For them, no evidence will be convincing.
Click to expand...

I would like to ask you a question, about this: given that you are no doubt aware of the body of evidence that exists supporting the theory that Oswald acted alone, and that most professionals agree with that theory, what would it instead take for you to be convinced of it ?

Bonus question: why do you believe that you are more qualified than the experts to analyse the data and draw conclusions from it ?

Marcello confessed to an undercover, FBI informant, that David Ferrie introduced him to Oswald at a meeting at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans and that he ordered the assassination of president Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Aside from his confession, do you have any other evidence of this ? Also, I consider it quite possible that someone paid or otherwise incited Oswald to carry out the assassination. However, this still leaves Oswald as the only gunman. How does this mesh with your earlier statements ?
 
Robert Harris said:
I already stated that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Report allegedly ad hominem posts for moderation. Otherwise do not simply declare posts to be ad hominem as a convenient excuse for ignoring them.

I do evidence and I do facts.
Click to expand...

No, you do subjectivity, assumption, and inference. Then you ignore anyone who points out that this is what your argument consists of. Insisting that your beliefs are fact does not make them so. Sorry, but you don't get to hold out for the kind of rebuttal you were hoping for.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.
Click to expand...

The way you approach the presentation of your case is a suitable topic for this forum, especially when it fits a well-established pattern intended to avoid a meaningful test of that case.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Totally never expected to see Robert post walls of text and stop responding to any of the outstanding questions. Big surprise there.
Click to expand...

I respond to all questions related to the assassination. If I have overlooked anything, please tell me specifically, what it was.
 
Robert Harris said:
I already stated that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks. I do evidence and I do facts.
Click to expand...
You should look up ad hominemWP. I've conveniently given you a link so that you may brush up on and understand its nuances.

Also, no, you don't do facts. You do inferences. This has been explained, shown and demonstrated for you numerous times. I don't think you've quite got it yet.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.
Click to expand...
You also need to understand the difference between your posting being discussed and you being discussed. It is very common for CTists to take such ownership of their pet CT that they see any criticism of it as a criticism of themselves. They can't distinguish between the two. In my post that you replied to, I spoke of your manner of posting and non-responsiveness. If you feel those are personal attacks, by all means report it for moderation.

Might be time for you to take a breather and have a rethink.
 
Robert Harris said:
Mr. Utah, it is not a "scam" to argue for a level playing field.
Click to expand...

Reality isn't a level playing field: there is evidence and the conclusion that it leads to. If your argument is not as convincing, no one will give you a break just for the hell of it.

Robert Harris said:
How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?
Click to expand...

The fact that you seem unaware of the things Jay is telling you, for starters.
 
Robert Harris said:
How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?

In fact, I have read a great deal of it. I will read it all after I complete the simpler task of reading "War and Peace".
Click to expand...

I've read both the later was too long but interesting the former interesting but too long - why too long? Because:

Those who posted in it didn't read it and repeated the same ideas over and over again and also by those who attempted to shift the burden of proof with out one success.

From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'
 
JayUtah said:
Report allegedly ad hominem posts for moderation. Otherwise do not simply declare posts to be ad hominem as a convenient excuse for ignoring them.
Click to expand...

I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

Attacks on me personally, are by any definition, ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in reporting you, because every time you sink to that level, you confirm that you are unable to refute my analysis, objectively and honestly.

Would you like to discuss the statements by John Connally, DA Henry Wade and officer Bobby Nolan, who confirmed that the actual bullet that wounded Connally could not have been the same one that Daryl Tomlinson found?

Don't you think it's significant that the FBI may given the Warren Commission falsified evidence?

I think that's a much more important subject than "Robert Harris", don't you?
 
Robert Harris said:
I'm sorry but I no longer respond to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should learn what those are, first.

I do evidence and I do facts.
Click to expand...

Drawing your own conclusion from frames of a video is not a "fact". It's called an "interpretation".

That's why I turned to the best scientists and the empirical evidence which proves that the nature and simultaneity of the reactions
Click to expand...

Nice story, but we still have only your interpretation.

Every sentence you just wrote, contains either "you" or "your".
Click to expand...

Please stop playing the drama queen. We _can_ address each other, you know. And I think that criticism about your methods should be taken into consideration by you, as they pertain directly to the topic at hand.
 
Hans said:
From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'
Click to expand...

Well, yes. The principal function of CTs, for CTers, seems to be not the conclusion, but the excitement of musing about a world-wide sinister plot that only they can uncover. Bringing it to a full conclusion would defeat its purpose.
 
Robert Harris said:
I have no interest in reporting you...
Click to expand...

Then you are uninterested in an objective opinion of whether my comments to you really are ad hominem as you claim. The proper way to deal with alleged personal attacks is to report them for moderation, not to try to eke rhetorical mileage out of them.

I addressed your latest Gish gallop by pointing out that (once again) the conclusions you purport to draw from those observations are not "facts" as you claim, but are inferences you've drawn from them according to subjective judgment and assumptions. I repeat that however lengthy your presentation may be, the central flaws in your argument are simple, easily identified, and inescapable.

I do not apologize that you are not getting the kind of rebuttal you hoped for.
 
Robert Harris said:
Attacks on me personally, are by any definition, ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

No, actually. That is not the definition of ad hominem. That's why several of us are telling you to check your definitions. You're doing the same thing with this term as with your interpretation of the videos and pictures: refusing to doubt your own knowledge and re-evaluate it.
 
Hans said:
I've read both the later was too long but interesting the former interesting but too long - why too long? Because:

Those who posted in it didn't read it and repeated the same ideas over and over again and also by those who attempted to shift the burden of proof with out one success.

From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you have to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks.

But I do thank you for confirming that you are unable to deal with the evidence I have posted in this forum. I am flattered.
 
RoboTimbo said:
You didn't look up the definition, did you? Even when I gave you a link.

And you wonder why your investigative methods are suspect?
Click to expand...

"Robert Harris" is not a suitable topic for discussion.

Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?

Why do you suppose he slowed the limo as he simultaneously spun around so fast that alterationists claimed his turns were humanly impossible?

Alvarez has a theory on that. Perhaps we could discuss that too.
 
Robert Harris said:
"Robert Harris" is not a suitable topic for discussion.
Click to expand...

Yet you discuss him in every post.

Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.
 
Robert Harris said:
How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?
Click to expand...
I never said I confirmed it; I surmised as much when, after it was suggested to you that you do so, you reacted negatively rather than reply that:

In fact, I have read a great deal of it. I will read it all after I complete the simpler task of reading "War and Peace".
Click to expand...
A fair enough point insofar as there's quite a bit of repetition throughout. However, I've found quite a bit of that to be entertaining during the moments when the discussion wasn't informative.

Anyway, enough with the appetizer - I for one am ready for the main course where you provide the alternate to the conventional narrative, one that accounts for all known elements and evidence.
 
Robert Harris said:
I'm sorry you have to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks.

But I do thank you for confirming that you are unable to deal with the evidence I have posted in this forum. I am flattered.
Click to expand...

I'm a lurker here and don't comment on the technical issue. I do however note people acting in odd ways.

Like accusing everyone of attacking you. My message was not an attack but an observation of your actions which every following post has confirmed.

You are not here to discuss the JFK issue if you were you wouldn't have posted to me.

Also go read the thread - the entire thread.

Oh and since you seem determined to find personal attacks in every post here is one for you.

'Robert you'd make an excellent Dogberry' - now lets see how long you whine about that one, lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom