• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Do not put statements into my mouth that I never said.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. I simply asked you a question,

And don't you find it troubling that you cannot to save your life, explain why Oswald fired high powered rifle shots that no one heard, or were not loud enough to startle anyone?

Where exactly do you see a statement that I put into your mouth:-)
 
Robert Harris said:
I did no such thing. I simply asked you a question,
Click to expand...

A loaded question.

Where exactly do you see a statement that I put into your mouth:-)
Click to expand...

Right there, where the question was loaded. "Troubling." "Cannot." "Safe your life." These are all your words that you're trying to foist upon me and then ask me how I feel about it.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
No. As I have already stated, you seem to assert things as fact for very strange reasons.
Click to expand...

Strange reasons?? Since when did you decide that the WC's conclusions were "strange" :-)

If you can't support the most basic 'facts', why should I be bothered to look too hard at the rest?
Click to expand...

You can't. The only problem is that you've provided no reason to believe that I have failed to support the basics or any other part of my analysis. Perhaps you would like to try though. Why don't you post a rebuttal to this article?

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Think about it, you could earn some benefit of the doubt by showing how you reached a wrong conclusion
Click to expand...

Why can't you be specific about this "wrong conclusion"?

It's hard to debate phantom accusations, my friend.

or you could leave people assuming you pull this stuff out of the ether.
Click to expand...

Please be specific about what exactly, you think I have pulled out of the ether. Please include a verbatim copy of the statement.

If the latter, then every time you try to shift the burden of proof,
Click to expand...

Please be specific about when I have tried to "shift the burden of proof". I have been accused of that even when I made no request at all for proof. And when I did ask for proof of various assertions, I had every right to do that.

He who asserts bears the burden of proving his assertion.

It really is that simple and it doesn't require a 1000 word disertation.

More often than not, when a CT advocate tells others to go check the facts, read a book, watch a video,
Click to expand...

How dare these rascals ask you to consider the evidence!! :p

or use the old "everybody who knows the literature should know THIS" gambit, they are trying to worm out of having to support their claims with evidence.
Click to expand...

Not unless everybody really does know, and the demand is to produce information which is easily accessible.

You might also want to consider that understanding the limitations of what the WC was able to deduce
Click to expand...

They didn't have to "deduce" anything that we are discussing now. They were the ones who interviewed the witnesses and they had access to the affidavits of the people who they didn't call. There was no guesswork required.

The witnesses who commented on the spacing of the shots were nearly unanimous in their conclusion. At one point, Dulles said the ratio was something like 5 to 1.

And every nonvictim in the limo, reported shots that were consistent with the other witnesses, as well as the scientists who identified a loud and startling noise at frame 285.

But I am open minded. Do you accept the Posner/Bugliosi model of the shot spacing? If so, let's weigh my evidence against yours.

Do you think it will be a close call:)
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You've confused me with someone who is playing your game.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that discussing the issues relevant to the conspiracy question is "playing a game"?

My questions are simple and straightforward, with no pressure of any kind that you agree with me.

Ask me anything about the assassination, and I will respond to the best of my ability, accurately and in detail.

Surely, you can do the same.
 
Robert Harris said:
Why do you think that discussing the issues relevant to the conspiracy question is "playing a game"?
Click to expand...

Loaded question. What you're doing is playing a game. And I will not play.

Ask me anything about the assassination, and I will respond to the best of my ability, accurately and in detail.
Click to expand...

As I told you earlier this week, I have already drawn my conclusion regarding your claims, the methods by which you formulated them, and the manner in which you defend them. See my previous posts in this thread for more information.
 
Robert Harris said:
Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?
Click to expand...

What conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission (WC) haven't you disputed?

The Warren Commission concluded the evidence indicated there were three shots fired during the assassination. You argue for five or more.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated all the shots came from the Depository. You argue for at least three different shooting locations, and maybe four (the sniper's nest, the Dal-Tex building, a shooter in front of the President, and, I think you said, the western end of the Depository).

The WC concluded the evidence indicated CE399 was legitimate evidence, and it, and the two large fragments found in the limo implicated Oswald's weapon in the assassination. You argue that CE399 was swapped later for the real bullet, and that the two large fragments found in the limo are also questionable.

And one more: The WC concluded there was no credible evidence of conspiracy. You argue there is.

Among other conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission you've disputed.

Hank
 
The WC does not deny it's own theory. You have supplied no evidence for a cluster of shots, or for any timing a single shooter could not achieve. The WC does not contradict itself, only the silly interpretation you are trying to mangle from witnesses and wishful thinking.
 
Robert Harris said:
Strange reasons?? Since when did you decide that the WC's conclusions were "strange" :-)
Click to expand...

They weren't. YOUR claims of what is a fact, and what you think you can prove are strange.

Trying to average witness testimony is strange. Looking at films and declaring you know what people have heard and are reacting to is strange. Your constant reliance on trying to skew what others tell you is strange.

You make strange claims of what are fact and proven.I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend I was talking about the WC when I made it quite clear I was your interpretation, and your ethereal 'analysis' with which I have issues.

Quite frankly I'm out. I have tried to engage you, to get you to answer direct queries about your claims, to convince me you at least have areas on for making your claims, and yet you constantly seek to baffle yourself.

If you still need to ask what odd conclusions you have reached, or when you have shifted the burden of proof, after several pages of these and other fallacies being pointed out, repeatedly, and if you are unwilling to supply the most basic details of your "proof" and "evidence", after direct requests, then there is no point wasting further posts.

You can't back up your "facts" even when told how.
 
Tomtomkent said:
They weren't. YOUR claims of what is a fact, and what you think you can prove are strange.
Click to expand...

Why are you always posting ambiguous accusations?

You've been specific in past, but after my rebuttals, you seem to have decided to go vague.

Trying to average witness testimony is strange.
Click to expand...

I made a general estimate, based on reading every one of the witness statements. If you dispute my conclusion then the floor is yours.

Looking at films and declaring you know what people have heard and are reacting to is strange.
Click to expand...

I based my conclusions on the combination of what those people said and what they did. For example, Kellerman said a flurry of at least two shots came into the car at the same point in time that we see him carrying out textbook startle reactions as confirmed by Hunt and Landis.

What really is "strange", is to deny that he was reacting to exactly what he said he heard then.
 
Tomtomkent said:
The WC does not deny it's own theory.
Click to expand...

Excellent catch!

You have supplied no evidence for a cluster of shots, or for any timing a single shooter could not achieve.
Click to expand...

I proved that shots were fired at 285-288 which were too close to 313, for Oswald to have fired both.

If you disagree then we need to debate that issue specifically.

Have you read the article I linked for you?

Are you ready to post a rebuttal?
 
Robert Harris said:
I proved that shots were fired at 285-288 which were too close to 313, for Oswald to have fired both.

Are you ready to post a rebuttal?
Click to expand...

You've been embarrassingly unable to deal with the rebuttals you've already gotten, remember? Have you forgotten that your inferences aren't evidence?

How are you going to overcome the fatal flaws already pointed out?

The ball is in your court. ;)
 
HSienzant said:
What conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission (WC) haven't you disputed?
Click to expand...

That certainly is an impressive response:-)

The Warren Commission concluded the evidence indicated there were three shots fired during the assassination.
Click to expand...

And there were. The Warren Commission said that most witnesses heard three shots. I couldn't agree more.

You argue for five or more.
Click to expand...

Actually, four with certainty.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated all the shots came from the Depository.
Click to expand...

You may be right about that, but please post something verbatim so that we can see exactly how they phrased it.

You argue for at least three different shooting locations, and maybe four (the sniper's nest, the Dal-Tex building, a shooter in front of the President, and, I think you said, the western end of the Depository).
Click to expand...

I only argue for one with certainty.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated CE399 was legitimate evidence,
Click to expand...

Yes, but they were unaware that the FBI was fabricating evidence. We shouldn't hold that against them.

and it, and the two large fragments found in the limo implicated Oswald's weapon in the assassination. You argue that CE399 was swapped later for the real bullet, and that the two large fragments found in the limo are also questionable.
Click to expand...

Of course, anything that passed through the FBI labs then must be considered with a grain of salt.

BTW, have you checked this extreme blowup of the four sides of CE399? Do you see the initials of Johnsen and Todd?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

And one more: The WC concluded there was no credible evidence of conspiracy. You argue there is.
Click to expand...

They said they didn't know of any evidence of conspiracy.

But you're probably right that there are a couple of other things I disagreed on. But perhaps the number of conclusions I questioned is not as important as whether I was right.

Dontcha think?
 
Robert Harris said:
I presumed you to be an honest man with strong opinions on the case, who was not afraid to defend them.
Click to expand...

Across hundreds of pages and three threads you keep failing to understand the simple reality of how this works. 'Oswald acted alone' is the established null hypothesis supported by substantial evidence. The burden is on you to provide a superior theory that can displace it, not on anyone else to defend it.
 
Robert Harris said:
He who asserts bears the burden of proving his assertion.
Click to expand...
If a person is positing that there is a Starbucks on the far side of the moon, another does not have to make a counter-claim of the existence of a Piggly Wiggly below the Great Barrier Reef to evaluate the first person's claim.

I don't have to put forth any evidence whatsoever in support of a lone gunman theory in order to evaluate your theory of conspiracy.

It really is that simple and it doesn't require a 1000 word disertation. [sic]
Click to expand...
Quoted for ironic truth.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
This is a rebuttal to a portion of your lengthy rebuttal post concerning John Connally. Let's look at a portion of Connally's testimony
Click to expand...

A very serious problem here is that you want post a "portion", typically 4 or 5 words from a witnesses testimony. What's wrong with posting at least the full paragrah?

and see if it's consistent with Clint Hill's and Roy Kellerman's version of events. We'll double-back to look at Kellerman's "concussion" testimony.

Did Connally remember two sounds at the end, the sound of the rifle shot and the sound of the impact?

He said he did.
Click to expand...

No he didn't.

Instead of citing him totally out of context, in tiny sections, let's get the whole story.

"She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."

Does that sound like two shots to you:-)

Your denials of his testimony changes that not a whit.
So when Connally said, "...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something.... I heard it hit", that's not two sounds to you?
Click to expand...

LOL! Of course not. And his repeated use of the singular pronoun "it", makes it pretty clear, how many shots he heard then.

Perhaps you are being confused by this sentence,

"I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President."

He's not describing two separate shots. He says he heard the shot his "something", which he correctly presumed, was the President.

That's not saying he heard both the shot, and the impact of the shot?
Click to expand...

Not on this planet. If Connally thought he heard two shots then, don't you think he would have said so?

You think he described the sound of the final rifle shot five different times in one breath? Really?
Click to expand...

Let's cut to the chase.

I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.

Case closed, my friend.
 
Robert Harris said:
Why? Are you suggesting the WC was full of crap?

"..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.."



You're attacking a straw man. Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?

And even if I had disputed other specific issues, that would be irrelevant if my disagreement was solidly backed by the evidence.

Also, the WC's conclusions are essentially, against interest, since they contradict their own theory which denied closely bunched shots at the end and a solitary early shot.

Perhaps even more importantly, the witnesses perceptions are consistent with the nonvictims in the limousine and the scientists who evaluated the Zapruder film.
Click to expand...
No Robert, I've created no strawmen. I have simply observed your treatment of the evidence and testimony contained in the Warren Commission report. It is self evident that you are using what you think supports your assertions, adding whatever inferences you deem necessary to make it look like it supports your hypothesis. It's even more obvious that you are disregarding the vast majority of evidence that does not support your hypothesis.

There is also the little fact that the pillar of your whole spiel is your interpretation of what you see in a home movie. A pillar that has been shown to be made of mud.
 
Garrison said:
Across hundreds of pages and three threads you keep failing to understand the simple reality of how this works. 'Oswald acted alone' is the established null hypothesis
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Nothing in the forum rules says anything even remotely like that.

supported by substantial evidence.
Click to expand...

No sir. There is no evidence of any kind which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.

The burden is on you to provide a superior theory that can displace it, not on anyone else to defend it.
Click to expand...

No sir. The burden is on each of us is to defend our favorite theory. And it is hilarious that there are people here who think they can demand that I accept their arbitrary, "null hypothesis", which is one of most ridiculous and long discredited theories in existence.

I can only think of one plausible reason that anyone would feel compelled to fabricate "rules" which relieve them of defending their theory. And that is that they know they can't.
 
Robert Harris said:
No it isn't.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, even though you disagree with it. If you think there is an alternate null hypothesis, what is it?

Nothing in the forum rules says anything even remotely like that.
Click to expand...
Correct. Did you miss JayUtah's discussion about it earlier? You're responsible for knowing what you've been told, whether you agree with it or not.

No sir. There is no evidence of any kind which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
Click to expand...
None at all? Interesting. You'll need to defend that assertion now. What evidence do you have for it?

No sir. The burden is on each of us is to defend our favorite theory. And it is hilarious that there are people here who think they can demand that I accept their arbitrary, "null hypothesis", which is one of most ridiculous and long discredited theories in existence.
Click to expand...
LOL. Stamp your foot ever so mightily, your "Lone Nut" theory is the null hypothess. Don't you have one that will overturn that? If you do, present it and we'll evaluate it.

I can only think of one plausible reason that anyone would feel compelled to fabricate "rules" which relieve them of defending their theory. And that is that they know they can't.
Click to expand...
LOL again. If you are afraid that your alternate hypothesis will be torn to shreds... well, we both know there isn't much you can do about it.
 
BazBear said:
No Robert, I've created no strawmen. I have simply observed your treatment of the evidence and testimony contained in the Warren Commission report. It is self evident that you are using what you think supports your assertions, adding whatever inferences you deem necessary to make it look like it supports your hypothesis. It's even more obvious that you are disregarding the vast majority of evidence that does not support your hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Be sure to post only nonspecific, sweeping accusations. That way your adversary has nothing to refute.

Oh wait! You already knew that?

There is also the little fact that the pillar of your whole spiel is your interpretation of what you see in a home movie. A pillar that has been shown to be made of mud.
Click to expand...

See, this is why you need to remain ambiguous or as in this case, your accusation goes down the commode.

My analysis does indeed include the reactions of the limo passengers, which began in the same 1/18th of a second of Zapruders, as confirmed by Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Michael Stroscio.

They are also confirmed by the unanimous testimonies of the nonvictims in the limo who said they heard shots, at the end of the attack, which were perfect matches for when they reacted.

And they in turn, were corroborated by the large majority of other witnesses that day, who also heard just one shot a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Pretending that all I have is a subjective opinion of a home movie is not the kind of tactic I expected around here.
 
Robert Harris said:
No it isn't.

Nothing in the forum rules says anything even remotely like that.
Click to expand...
Who said this was laid out in the MA? It must be obvious to you by now that you have not and will not be silenced simply due to your beliefs in a hypothesis that is vastly different from the null hypothesis. If some of us believe your arguments fail due to faults in logic and reasoning, we will and are allowed to point those problems out to you

No sir. There is no evidence of any kind which isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
Click to expand...
True. However there is no evidence of any other shooters, other than fantasies created by conspiracy theorists.

No sir. The burden is on each of us is to defend our favorite theory. And it is hilarious that there are people here who think they can demand that I accept their arbitrary, "null hypothesis", which is one of most ridiculous and long discredited theories in existence.
Click to expand...
This this just shows, once again, you don't understand how this all works.

I can only think of one plausible reason that anyone would feel compelled to fabricate "rules" which relieve them of defending their theory. And that is that they know they can't.
Click to expand...
Yes Robert, we know your theories are indefensible. Please stop projecting.
 
Robert Harris said:
Be sure to post only nonspecific, sweeping accusations. That way your adversary has nothing to refute.

Oh wait! You already knew that?
Click to expand...
Simple. Stop making vague arguments based simply on what you think you see in a home movie, backed by whatever you think supports those arguments. Give us a narrative that makes sense. One that has supporting credible evidence, not inferences and speculation and cherry picked testimony.

See, this is why you need to remain ambiguous or as in this case, your accusation goes down the commode.
Click to expand...
Well somebody's does, I'll let the readers decide which is which.

My analysis does indeed include the reactions of the limo passengers, which began in the same 1/18th of a second of Zapruders, as confirmed by Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Michael Stroscio.
Click to expand...
Your opinion, their opinions (and they don't seem to support your contentions anyway), not facts.

They are also confirmed by the unanimous testimonies of the nonvictims in the limo who said they heard shots, at the end of the attack, which were perfect matches for when they reacted.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. Sometimes they match what you want them to match (using a lot of mental gymnatics), and you continue to disregard the parts that don't. Your opinions, no matter how freaking much you want them to be, are not facts.

And they in turn, were corroborated by the large majority of other witnesses that day, who also heard just one shot a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.
Click to expand...
Read my reply to the last paragraph.

Pretending that all I have is a subjective opinion of a home movie is not the kind of tactic I expected around here.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, it's self evident to me that your subjective opinion about the Zapruder film is all you have. Anything else you've presented is a cherry picked attempt to back fill the huge holes in your hypothesis.
 
Robert Harris said:
For example, the "lone nut" theory, which is rejected by most people and researchers, as well as the most recent federal investigation, contradicts most of the witnesses who heard the shots. It requires Lee Harvey Oswald...
Click to expand...
Regnad Kcin said:
Please share with the forum the prevailing, established, agreed-upon-by-most-people-and-researchers theory for who killed JFK. Take your time.
Click to expand...
It's been 52 years, you must have it lying around close by. But, again, no rush.
 
Robert Harris said:
That certainly is an impressive response:-)?
Click to expand...

Giving me a smiley face and an compliment is not an answer to the question I asked. It's an avoidance of an answer.


Robert Harris said:
And there were. The Warren Commission said that most witnesses heard three shots. I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

That's false. The Warren Commission concluded three shots were fired.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html#conclusions
2.The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

You disagree with that, and admit it below.


Robert Harris said:
Actually, four with certainty.
Click to expand...

The Warren Commission said three. You dispute that conclusion.



Robert Harris said:
You may be right about that, but please post something verbatim so that we can see exactly how they phrased it.
Click to expand...

You need me to quote back to you the WC conclusions? Are you unfamiliar with them? If so, why did you claim to dispute only one conclusion? If not, why do you need for me to quote it?

Just more avoidance anytime you want to avoid a direct answer.

It's not about resolving the assassination, it's about prolonging the conversation.

See the link cited above if you need help determining what the Warren Commission conclusions were.


Robert Harris said:
I only argue for one with certainty.
Click to expand...

The only ones I've seen you argue for strenuously are the Dal-Tex building (several posts about Jim Braden, with no evidence cited); and a shot from somewhere in front that caused damage to the back of the head that you believe you see in the Zapruder film.

If you're arguing for more than that, that's three to the Warren Commission's one. If you're arguing for the sniper's nest in addition to those two, you're still arguing for three instead of one.

You've argued with (professed) certainty that there were shots at Z285 and Z313 - and argued that Oswald couldn't have fired both. You've argued repeatedly for this. You can't backtrack into claiming you're only arguing for one shooter "with certainty" now.

You can't backtrack into Oswald was the lone shooter, either, because you've repeatedly argued for four shots and two shooters. Oswald was one shooter, and the evidence indicates he fired no more than three shots, based on the shells left behind. So cut the 'one with certainty' nonsense and just admit your original claim was erroneous.


Robert Harris said:
Yes, but they were unaware that the FBI was fabricating evidence. We shouldn't hold that against them.?
Click to expand...

RHLF - Begging the question.


Robert Harris said:
Of course, anything that passed through the FBI labs then must be considered with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

RHLF - Begging the question.


Robert Harris said:
BTW, have you checked this extreme blowup of the four sides of CE399? Do you see the initials of Johnsen and Todd? http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
Click to expand...

Asked and answered previously. Changing the subject (i.e., the logical fallacy of a red herring). The link to where this was discussed has been provided. You apparently have nothing better to do than raise questions that were just discussed immediately prior to your arrival. Nor any desire to research that discussion.


Robert Harris said:
They said they didn't know of any evidence of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

That's what I said.
9.The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.
...
Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission.
10.In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.
11.On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone.



Robert Harris said:
But you're probably right that there are a couple of other things I disagreed on. But perhaps the number of conclusions I questioned is not as important as whether I was right. Dontcha think?
Click to expand...

You said there was only one ("Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?") It turns out there were quite a few. If you can't recognize the difference between singular and plural, why should we look seriously at your other contentions?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
I'm terribly sorry. But I absolutely promise that when the facts and evidence change I will change my analysis.

And don't you find it troubling that you cannot to save your life, explain why Oswald fired high powered rifle shots that no one heard, or were not loud enough to startle anyone?
Click to expand...

No one has to explain anything that didn't happen.
You haven't proved either of those propositions.
 
Robert Harris said:
Does that sound like two shots to you:-)

LOL! Of course not. And his repeated use of the singular pronoun "it", makes it pretty clear, how many shots he heard then.

Perhaps you are being confused by this sentence,

"I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President."

...If Connally thought he heard two shots then, don't you think he would have said so?
Click to expand...

All of the above is just one long straw man argument. I never said Connally heard two shots at the very end -- that's something you just invented to prolong the discussion. I said he heard two sounds at the very end -- one shot and one impact on the head.

Really, how do you expect to be able to rebut my claims if you can't understand my claims and even repeat them back to me accurately?


Robert Harris said:
Let's cut to the chase.
[Connally said:] "I didn't hear but two shots."
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. What confused you about these remarks?

HSienzant said:
Connally was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, and an impact of the final shot. And he described two separate sounds connected with the final shot.

Did Connally remember two sounds at the end, the sound of the rifle shot and the sound of the impact?

Connally said he heard both the shot and the impact ...

That's not [Connally] saying he heard both the shot, and the impact of the shot?
Click to expand...



Curiously, imbedded in your post, you also admit the very point I've been arguing for, and you've been arguing against:

Robert Harris said:
He's not describing two separate shots. He says he heard the shot his [hit] "something", which he correctly presumed, was the President.
Click to expand...

JACKPOT. Yes, we have a winner!

Connally heard, in addition to one earlier shot, a final shot, and ALSO the impact of that final shot.

YOU JUST ADMITTED IT.

That's what I said originally, and what you originally argued he never said anything remotely like that. Forget your arguments? I don't. I sometimes just have to pick my spots.

HSienzant said:
For example, Governor Connally not only described the brain matter, he clearly differentiated between the sound of the final bullet being fired and the sound of the impact on the head.
== QUOTE ==
Governor CONNALLY. ... and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise,just that audible, very clear.
== UNQUOTE ==
Robert Harris said:
He never said anything even remotely like what you claimed. In fact, he was very clear that he only heard two shots in total. Unlike the other witnesses, he only heard one of the final shots, which isn't too surprising, considering that he was only a few seconds from losing consciousness.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Connally heard two shots, and the impact of the final shot.
Exactly what Hill described.
Exactly what Kellerman was describing.

Those final two sounds are what many witnesses are talking about when they say the final two shots were "bunched", "on top of each other", "simultaneous", etc. One shot and one sound of impact, which you admit above is what Connally testified to (two sounds, closely bunched).

If there was a shot shortly before that (at about Z285), those witnesses should have described three sounds, two bunched shots and the sound of the Impact, or three closely bunched shots. Connally didn't, Clint Hill didn't, Kellerman didn't, Mrs. Kennedy didn't, Greer didn't.

Robert, exactly what witnesses did describe three sounds bunched at the end?

Hank
 
Last edited:
So out of interest is there anybody here who is convinced that Robert has identified the gunshots in the z film. Is there even one person to whom he can claim to have proven his analysis?
 
Robert Harris said:
He's not describing two separate shots. He says he heard the shot his [hit] "something", which he correctly presumed, was the President.
Click to expand...

So according to you, Connally was alert enough and conscious enough to not only hear the sound of the rifle shot, but the impact of that shot that struck the President in the head, at Zapruder frame 313, if I understand the above correctly.

You might want to explain how come he wasn't alert enough and conscious enough to hear the sound that you claim preceded it at frame Z285.

You previously tried to claim he only recalled one of the final shots because he was only moments from slipping into unconsciousness:

Robert Harris said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. He never said anything even remotely like what you claimed. In fact, he was very clear that he only heard two shots in total. Unlike the other witnesses, he only heard one of the final shots, which isn't too surprising, considering that he was only a few seconds from losing consciousness.
Click to expand...

One would think he would recall the preceding one (at Z285) better than the shot and the sound of the impact at Z313, since he was only a few seconds from losing consciousness. Or if he recalled the Z313 shot and the impact, he would also recall the Z285 shot that passed overhead, according to you.

But none the less, however you attempt to explain it, you admitted he testified he heard two sounds at the end, the shot and the impact of the shot on the President's head.

You might want to revisit some of the testimony with that in mind - that both the impact of the bullet striking the head was audible to Connally, as well as the sound of the bullet being fired.

You can start with the points in this post you ignored previously.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10752298#post10752298

Here's where you quoted a whole passel of eyewitnesses.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10740677#post10740677
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10740714#post10740714

Please tell us how you know they are not talking about two shots and an impact on the head as the three sounds they heard. Please tell us how come no one described three sounds at the end of the shooting (or four, if you want to argue for the shot from the front causing a large rear exit wound visible in Z337) starting shortly before the very visible head shot:

If you believe in two early shots, a shot at Z285, another at Z313, and the sound of the impact of the Z313 shot, as well as yet another shot thereafter from the front, and maybe more, that's an awful lot of missing shots the vast majority of witnesses didn't hear at the very end of the shooting.

Hank
 
Last edited:
I've never been shot by a rifle from 300 feet behind me, so it's hard to say why I would have heard, except me yelling or screaming (hopefully, otherwise it's a bad day).

There is no sound evidence, and you can't tell what people heard or didn't hear based off their reactions or supposed non-reactions on a grainy silent film.

I was into this stuff for a long time, and I've seen some pretty plausible CTs come and go (mostly go). This isn't one of them.
 
Axxman300 said:
I've never been shot by a rifle from 300 feet behind me, so it's hard to say why I would have heard, except me yelling or screaming (hopefully, otherwise it's a bad day).

There is no sound evidence, and you can't tell what people heard or didn't hear based off their reactions or supposed non-reactions on a grainy silent film.

I was into this stuff for a long time, and I've seen some pretty plausible CTs come and go (mostly go). This isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

I think the eyewitness evidence gives indications of a couple of different scenarios. Unfortunately for Robert, his scenario is not one of them.

We've got a better one on the table in the "two shot, one impact" scenario that accounts for what the majority of the witnesses heard without invoking magical gunmen that pop up, fire shots that leave no trace, fire shots that go unheard, and then disappear again.

Maybe they were pink unicorn assassins, because there's no evidence for pink unicorns either, so that's how we know they did the shooting (beating Robert to the punch on his favorite logical fallacy).

Hank
 
Last edited:
BazBear said:
Who said this was laid out in the MA?
Click to expand...

I never said they did. This is just another straw man fallacy.

It must be obvious to you by now that you have not and will not be silenced simply due to your beliefs in a hypothesis that is vastly different from the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

LOL!! You mean a fabrication by a handful of LN advocates, don't you?

I am declaring the "null hypothesis" to be that Oswald had accomplices. Will you be silenced simply due to your beliefs in an hypothesis that is vastly different?

If some of us believe your arguments fail due to faults in logic and reasoning, we will and are allowed to point those problems out to you
Click to expand...

This seems to be another in a series of straw men, since I never said they were not allowed to disagree. In fact, I have practically begged them to address my articles and presentations.

But I am unimpressed by people who think form is more important than substance, and evade the evidence while making irrelevant arguments that in most cases are ridiculously false.

True. However there is no evidence of any other shooters, other than fantasies created by conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

You are begging the question, since you have made no attempt to refute the fact that early shots were fired which were inaudible to most witnesses or not loud enough to startle anyone.

Nor have you addressed the reactions following frame 285, which were simultaneous with each other and the reaction by Abraham Zapruder as confirmed by Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

And a great deal of other evidence.

This this just shows, once again, you don't understand how this all works.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly how "this" works. It's about a handful of LNers who have figured out that they can't defend their favorite JFK theory and have fabricated "rules" which absolve them from the responsibility of doing so.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
I think the eyewitness evidence gives indications of a couple of different scenarios. Unfortunately for Robert, his scenario is not one of them.
Click to expand...

How shocking is that??

It is not "unfortunate for Robert", that an advocate for the LN theory disagrees with him. What is "unfortunate" is that so many people are impervious to the evidence which proves them wrong.

We've got a better one on the table in the "two shot, one impact"
Click to expand...

Well of course! Never mind that every attempt you have made to push this nonsense has been thoroughly refuted and every one of "your" witnesses has flatly contradicted you:-)

Both Clint Hill and John Connally were crystal clear that the last shot they heard, was exactly that. Neither of them even hinted that they thought they heard two shots from one.

Maybe they were pink unicorn assassins, because there's no evidence for pink unicorns either, so that's how we know they did the shooting (beating Robert to the punch on his favorite logical fallacy).
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have heard from you guys all day:-)

You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no assassins were there.

And you deny the ridiculously obvious fact that a sniper would choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail.

Meanwhile, you don't want to talk about the infinitely more important facts that at least one of the early shots was inaudible to most of the witnesses and none of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions that followed 285 and 313.

How could those shots have been fired from a high powered rifle that produced sound levels that were 16 TIMES LOUDER than the level which has been proven to cause involuntary startle reactions and permanent hearing loss with extended exposure??

Don't you think THAT evidence is infinitely more important than that snipers did exactly what we should expect them to do, to avoid getting caught?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom