Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Warren Commission never said that. They said there was no evidence Oswald had help of any nature. They also said they found no evidence of conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html#conclusions

== QUOTE ==
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.


YES! That's exactly what I said. Read your own citations.

They said they had found no evidence of conspiracy, which is not exactly shocking, considering that they relied almost entirely on Hoover's FBI for their evidence.
 
Hoover's opinion

As anyone who has read my article on CE399 knows, the FBI received two bullets from Parkland, neither of which came from Oswald's rifle.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Hoover of course, was aware of that and needed to let his old friend LBJ know that Oswald didn't act alone. But if he just blurted it out, he would have put LBJ in a predicament in which he would have had to either go public with that information or commit the impeachable crime of obstructing justice.

What he did, was tell Johnson in a more subtle way, so that he was not put at risk. This recorded phone conversation occurred one week after the assassination.

LBJ: How did it happen they hit Connally?

JEH: Connally turned to the President, when the first shot was fired
and I think that in turning.. it was where he got hit.

LBJ: If he hadn't turned he probably wouldn't have gotten hit?

JEH: I think that is very likely.

LBJ: Would the President've gotten hit by the second one?

JEH: No, the President wasn't hit with the second one.

LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way?

JEH: Oh, yes, yes. The President would no doubt have been hit!


Of course, by this time, everyone on the planet, and certainly Hoover, knew that Connally was seated in front of JFK. The only way Connally could have been in the way of a bullet for Kennedy, was if a shot was fired from the front, or JBC was sitting on the trunk:-)

And LBJ obviously got the message. Having been in the motorcade himself, he certainly knew that JFK was sitting in the higher, rear seat, as he always did in motorcades. So why don't we hear him question Hoover's theory?
 
The Conspiracy Theorist's game is incredibly boring, for me.

It may be tedious, but it's useful in a context such as ISF as an example both of the illogical lines of reasoning we sometimes can discuss only as abstract patterns and toy examples, and of the rhetorical methods proponents sometimes use to manipulate the mechanism of intellectual inquiry toward other ends.

This is partially why I invite new proponents to read the thread. I feel it's valuable for the discussion as a whole to see what territory has been previously covered. But I feel it's more important for new proponents to see what kinds of approaches historically have not worked. I trust them to recognize those approaches and not waste everyone's time by redeploying them, if they want to be taken seriously.

Many laughs are to be had by reading their nonsense.
But it's pointless to play along.

It's pointless to keep playing after the game is revealed. But a certain amount of play has to ensue before you can conclude it truly is a game. Before you can induce the proposition that the proponent is intractable, you have to apply enough traction to allow the reasonable observer to see this for himself, and draw the same conclusion for himself. That's the essential nature of consensus-based induction. This is why we often require juries to reach a verdict by unanimous vote.

ETA: respect to people who have the patience to play along but it's a futile endeavour.

Every person has to arrive at that conclusion according to his own criteria, and in his own time. Those of us who entered the game early have naturally tired of it. Some let the game run long; others let it run only a few rounds before calling it quits.

And there is rarely only one thing wrong with an unconvincing argument. In the legal world, it's common to write motions and briefs such that all the possible lines of reasoning are covered. You want to give the judge the maximum latitude for finding in your favor. It doesn't matter in those lengthy documents if two-thirds of it is rendered moot by the judge's decision to sustain one fundamental objection.

But in a more fluid form of debate, a critic may pick one problem with the argument and argue it solely. That leaves room for other critics to come in later, even after the first has tired of several unproductive rounds on his point, and pick up the other points of failure.
 
I find this rather amazing. I have watched quite a few debates involving Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitch, Lawrence Krauss and other pretty sharp people.

And they always answer questions, even the most ridiculous, in fact. I have NEVER heard any of them refuse to answer a question with the excuse that it is a "game", even when it really was:-)

So why is it that the most brilliant and honest skeptics in existence, have no problem answering questions, while you do?

Maybe you need to watch a little more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE

partial transcript
---------------------------------------------------
[A Truther]
Being that anyone with moral and intellectual fortitude, who looks at the evidence of that day sees that no Al-Qaeda Jihadi had the means to schedule the war games that actually stood down our…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Hold it right there. No, no, no, that’s not right.

[A Truther]
Being that any Al-Qaeda…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Wasting your time.

[A Truther]
Being that any member of Al-Qaeda had no motive to anthrax the leading opponents of the Patriot Act.

[Christopher Hitchens]
Wasting your time. I’m not going to answer you.
[A Truther]
Why won’t you answer?

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak.

[A Truther] Source: LYBIO.net
So here is the question…

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak.

[A Truther]
Being that you are an intellectual and now that you are…

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak, I’m not bothering with you.

[A Truther]
Why?

[Christopher Hitchens]
I have no time to waste on people like you.

[A Truther]
Do you really believe 19 guys with…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Stop it.

[A Truther]
…Osama bin Laden…

[Christopher Hitchens] Source: LYBIO.net
I can’t make you stop, I can’t make you stop, but when you stop, it’s allover. Ok.

[A Truther]
Are you going to answer me?

[Christopher Hitchens]
No sir, I’m not.

[A Truther]
Do you believe it? Do you believe…?

[Christopher Hitchens]
No sir, I’m not. No. Nor am I going to buy – I’m not going to buy a pencil from your cup either.[A Truther]
You don’t even answer my question.

[Christopher Hitchens]
No, I’m not. That’s correct. I’m not.

Way in the backside, this gentlemen, way in the back, thank you.
 
Because two rifles would prove conspiracy.

And bullets from two rifles would prove conspiracy too.

As soon as your plot allows more than one gun to be used, you have to accept the likelihood that bullets from more than one gun may be recovered by people who are not your fellow conspirators.

So planning to use multiple shooters yet relying on concealing that fact would be a really, really dumb plan.

So it makes no sense to plot to conceal a second rifle.
 
I find this rather amazing. I have watched quite a few debates involving Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitch, Lawrence Krauss and other pretty sharp people.

And they always answer questions, even the most ridiculous, in fact. I have NEVER heard any of them refuse to answer a question with the excuse that it is a "game", even when it really was:-)

So why is it that the most brilliant and honest skeptics in existence, have no problem answering questions, while you do?
YouTube is an interesting adjunct to debate and research but the written word is preferable to present real ideas. Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.
 
Maybe you need to watch a little more?

That's a poor analogy, since Hitch was not in a debate forum with that guy, for the express purpose of debating him.

Is it your belief that it's a good tactic for Jay to refuse to answer any and all questions related to the issues we are discussing?

Do you think it's a good tactic for him to refuse to even state his own position on the assassination?

I have had many excellent debates with some of the sharpest LN advocates, who have written books on the assassination. They frequently clam up when confronted with tough questions, but in 20 years, I have never encountered anyone who used Jay's excuse.

Perhaps, you would like to take a shot?
 
No I don't and you guys wouldn't agree with me if I had a note from God:-)
Of course not. There is no such thing as god. It's a myth, much like your ideas.

And I don't make arguments based on "need". I base them on the evidence. If Ellsworth and the officers who talked to him about Oswald's rifle were truthful, then it is a fact that there were two murder weapons.
Except you ignore any and all counter-evidence presented.

Some issues cannot be resolved, in fact, many issues associated with this case cannot be resolved with certainty. Only blind advocates claim otherwise.
You claim this, yet you claim that you can be certain. Please reconcile these contrary claims.

I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots. And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.
Wait, is certainty possible or not? you have claimed both. Which is it?

Other issues, like the sniper locations, are also, not absolute certainties. The question of whether Ellsworth told the truth, also falls into that category. I see no probable reason to think that he didn't. You obviously do.
What sniper locations? You have provided evidence for none besides the TSBD.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record,
No risk involved, one of the few certainties you have presented.

I am here to present relevant facts and evidence, associated with the assassination.
Please feel free to commence to start. In your own time.

Will it help if I tell you another 12 times, that I cannot prove it is true?
Nope. That is called spam and is a violation of the MA you signed your name to.

Coming from a federal agent, it is obviously likely, however.
Because federal agents are godlike, as any fule kno. Eleventy.

I'm pretty sure I never said that. Cite me verbatim please. I have lost track of how many times you have misrepresented my statements.
I have no idea why your "cite me verbatim" argument seems to you to be a "killer argument". It isn't. All it is, is evidence that everyone lacks the motivation to seek out those posts both here and elsewhere. Because it is pointless. You would simply ignore such citations.

I said no such thing. It gets tiresome having to continually correct your misrepresentations.
Pot, meet kettle.
 
YES! That's exactly what I said. Read your own citations.

They said they had found no evidence of conspiracy, which is not exactly shocking, considering that they relied almost entirely on Hoover's FBI for their evidence.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, Robert.
 
YouTube is an interesting adjunct to debate and research but the written word is preferable to present real ideas.

Not in this case. The most critical issues are based on the reactions of the people who were closest to Kennedy. It's not good enough to just tell you what they did. It is infinitely better to show you.

But for anyone who insists on articles, I have provided them too. Perhaps you can do what no one else will even attempt to do - post a refutation.

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

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.

Begging the question. You are trying to demean analysis which you obviously, have never examined. That is not how critical thinkers do things.
 
That's a poor analogy, since Hitch was not in a debate forum with that guy, for the express purpose of debating him.

Is it your belief that it's a good tactic for Jay to refuse to answer any and all questions related to the issues we are discussing?

Do you think it's a good tactic for him to refuse to even state his own position on the assassination?

I have had many excellent debates with some of the sharpest LN advocates, who have written books on the assassination. They frequently clam up when confronted with tough questions, but in 20 years, I have never encountered anyone who used Jay's excuse.

Perhaps, you would like to take a shot?
Seems like some goalposts are moving there.

But I think the others have done a great job of taking apart your "evidence". Based on what you've presented here I see nothing of substance, just conjecture. And I think it's true you've largely followed the same format of previous CTists, just as Jay predicted.

You've presented no argument I can see that needs rebutting more than has already happened.

As Hitch said, I'm not going to buy a pencil from your cup.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.

Begging the question. You are trying to demean analysis which you obviously, have never examined. That is not how critical thinkers do things.

"Begging the question"...?!
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I delighted in that the first time I saw it. Some theories are just too stupid to be dignified with a lengthy rebuttal.

Are you referring to theories which are supported by the large majority of witnesses, and are supported by the most brilliant scientists to ever examine the Zapruder film?

Or perhaps you meant that it is "too stupid" to assume that these people reacted to exactly what they described hearing at the time?

ducking3.gif
 
Are you referring to theories which are supported by the large majority of witnesses, and are supported by the most brilliant scientists to ever examine the Zapruder film?

Or perhaps you meant that it is "too stupid" to assume that these people reacted to exactly what they described hearing at the time?

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif[/qimg]

Bob, get a grip! I've seen the Zapruder film! I've read your cockamamie arguments a zillion times!
And I have taken the time to give detailed rebuttals to your theories.
The "too stupid" remark referred explicitly to Truther ideas about controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. But if you want to draw an analogy...
 
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 react 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 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.
 
Seems like some goalposts are moving there.

But I think the others have done a great job of taking apart your "evidence".

Jim, there seems to be an epidemic around here, of vague and ambiguous accusations.

Why can't you be specific about exactly what evidence you think has been dismantled? Ambiguous accusations are pretty worthless, since we have nothing to discuss or debate if you don't tell me specifically, where you think I went wrong.

Did you examine post #3437?

What do you think is the most likely explanation for those movements?

You are aware I presume, that every nonvictim in the limo reported closely bunched shots at the end, or after events that were well after 223.

And do you realize, that according to the Warren Commission, "most" of the witnesses agreed with the passengers, reporting "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack?

And did you know that Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio analyzed the film and concluded that Abraham Zapruder reacted at frame 290-291, while the passengers reactions all began in the sixth of a second at 290-292?

Those are verifiable facts, Jim. Feel free to challenge me to prove what I just said.

Based on what you've presented here I see nothing of substance,

Have you viewed my articles and presentations?

If not, then how did you determine that they lack substance?

That's exactly the response I get from evangelists who declare that there is no valid evidence for evolution, but then refuse to examine the evidence I link - EXACTLY THE SAME RESPONSE.

Evaluate the evidence as objectively as you can. Earn the right to demean my analysis, instead of doing what everyone else around here does.
 
Jim, there seems to be an epidemic around here, of vague and ambiguous accusations.

Why can't you be specific about exactly what evidence you think has been dismantled?

Come on! Do you really think that any post that makes this observation of a salient fact should be required to enumerate all the (many) rebuttals you have received (which just about equals the number you have ignored)?
 
Just to be absolutely clear, people have been outright explaining the standard of evidence they want to be convinced.

If somebody won't supply that, and shows no interest in convincing anybody, then we have to ask why they are telling us. Other than trying to convince somebody of the CT there are no flattering reasons to advocate it.
 
That's exactly the response I get from evangelists who declare that there is no valid evidence for evolution, but then refuse to examine the evidence I link - EXACTLY THE SAME RESPONSE.

Evaluate the evidence as objectively as you can. Earn the right to demean my analysis, instead of doing what everyone else around here does.
Trying the hard sell on that pencil now? Do you find that those caps and an Ad Hom stimulate debate?
 
Last edited:
Seems like some goalposts are moving there.

On both sides of the argument.

Robert Harris moves the goal posts so if he shanks it, it's still a score.
And moves it so if we kick it right down the middle, it's always a miss.

That, along with his varying standards (when he needs some evidence, 30-year-old hearsay recollections will do just fine for him, but first-day hard evidence like rifle shells and photos of the crime scene aren't sufficient for us), pretty much ensures he can't lose.

At least, in his view.

We've all been around long enough to see through that.

It's pretty much CT-101.

Hank
 
It's always a great idea to misrepresent your adversaries and then attack your own misrepresentation.

What you prove is, that your arguments are a helluva lot easier to refute than mine:-)
Uh huh, I think the irony meter just 'sploded again.:rolleyes:

I'll just let the readers decide who's arguments are more credible.
 
Yeah, well, I think they were probably getting paid for their public appearances.

Paid or not, a public debate of that ilk is more entertainment than science. Real knowledge cannot generally be probed and discovered effectively in sound bites punctuated by commercial breaks. Hence there are celebrity skeptics, and then there are the more ordinary sort. Commensurately there are celebrity fringe theories, and then there are the more ordinary sort. I don't intend to sit in judgment on their individual characteristics, personalities, or other ad hominem qualities, but I do intend to judge the role of those high-profile exercises in actually testing the relevant ideas.

What would Jay get...when he knows from experience with you...

This is really it. There seems to be some sort of disconnect over how many opportunities a proponent will be given to be attentive and reasonable. That number is not infinite, nor is it particularly high for some of us. That is especially true when a proponent comes to the forum dragging a lot of "history" that's easily discovered. While the forum rules prevent us from drawing in those previous conversations from other forums, no rule keeps us from drawing conclusions on that basis regarding how profitable it will be to continue engaging the proponent in a similar mode, if he employs it here.

Proponents facing dismissal will sometimes fall over themselves promising to be reasonable going forward. But a critic can decide for himself how many chances to give.

Sadly it's all part of the game. An entrenched proponent well-girded in denial will inevitably alienate reasonable discussion after a time, and that alienation nearly always takes the form of the critic's explicit withdrawal. And despite the reasons given, the spurned proponent almost always suggests that withdrawal was "really" because the proponent's case was so insurmountable.
 
Last edited:
And to be fair, the supposed sniper(s) in the Dal-Tex building, assisted by those unicorn spotter(s). We know both were there because that's what snipers and unicorns do - leave no evidence behind and remain unseen.

Hank
Well okay, I stand corrected ;)
 
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."

Let's ignore for a second that you've totally ignored a better explanation for the double-bang Kellerman described and look at a separate timing issue you're ignoring now.

Do the math, Bob. How many seconds between frames 223 and 313 at 18.3 frames per second?

I get 4.9 seconds. What do you get?

You're claiming Kellerman is correct, but his estimate of that gap fits almost exactly with what most LNers believe today -- that Connally was wounded at Z223 and Kennedy was struck 90 frames later.

But you're also arguing Kellerman didn't hear that Z223 shot, he only heard an earlier one, at about Z150-160:

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.

How can you expect us to believe your contentions when you don't even address obvious timing issues like this?

Especially since you already vouched for Kellerman's accuracy, with him being a federal agent and all:
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.

Hank

PS: His five-second estimate fits pretty well with my theory, doesn't it, that there was a shot at Z223, and another at Z313, and Kellerman also heard the sound of the impact of the bullet to JFK's head, and thought that sound was a third shot. And thus, the last shot and the sound of the impact became Kellerman's "flurry". It fits in quite a number of ways, doesn't it? Even down to his estimate of the time between those two shots (4.9 seconds between Z223 and Z313 vs his "5 seconds, if that").
 
Last edited:
One small correction Hank

CT-101 presumes a freshman first year college course, I would suggest CT-51, a community college prep-course instead

I'm a high school dropout and never attended community college, so I apologize for the error.

Hank
 
Last edited:
You are aware I presume, that every nonvictim in the limo reported closely bunched shots at the end, or after events that were well after 223.

And do you realize, that according to the Warren Commission, "most" of the witnesses agreed with the passengers, reporting "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack.

Simply making your same claims over and over doesn't make them better.

Still waiting for you to rebut my arguments here: Two shots, at Z223, Z313, and a sound of impact of the final shot on the skull, exactly as testified to by John Connally and Clint Hill. And as you conceded earlier, that's exactly what Connally said he heard (just a reminder in case you were thinking of backtracking).

Those three sounds would account for the three shots as described by the vast majority of witnesses, AND the bunching the majority described - without invoking multiple unseen shooters who left no evidence (nor any pink unicorns either). I also don't have to believe hearsay that surfaced 30-years-after the fact, nor that much of the first-day evidence was somehow magically replaced by the third day because I can find some memo to take a paragraph out of context.

I think you're seeing where I'm going with this.

Hank
 
Last edited:
If that were true, you would have no problem refuting me, honestly and based on the verifiable facts and evidence.
Robert, I do believe there is no evidence in this world or any other that you would accept as a debunking of your nonsense.

Have you viewed my articles and presentations?
Unfortunately, yes.

If you have, then when will you be posting your rebuttals?
As they have been rebutted ad nauseum, please refer to my reply to the first paragraph. You will accept no rebuttal.

And if you have not, how can you know that my arguments are insufficient?
You make the same logical fallacies, and engage in the same cherry picking and/or misrepresentation of evidence and testimony in both this thread and your dog-and-pony show presentations. Anyone who chooses not to peruse your nonsense isn't missing a thing they can't see here.
 
Bump for Robert:

(The below originally was posted by me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10743586#post10743586 )

Bob never did respond to this:

== QUOTE ==

It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound. That is, in the Warren Commission narrative, Tague could have been wounded by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) AND have heard that third shot thereafter. That's physics for you. So inconvenient to your theory. Your argument here applies to the convential narrative as well. In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot.

And you're insisting on a new bullet at Z285 that nobody sees evidence for (except you) while simultaneously explaining away the evidence of the bullet striking both men at Z223, claiming it was inaudible. So convenient for your theory that the conspirators used a suppressed weapon for only one of the four shots, don't you think? Or maybe you're just assuming what you need to prove - the existence of a suppressed weapon, the existence of a weapon firing subsonic ammo, the existence of other shooters, the existence of a shot at Z285, the existence of the flinching by the occupants of the car...

Hank

== UNQUOTE ==
 
Last edited:
I'm a high school dropout and never attended community college, so I apologize for the error.

Hank

Well based on the many post of yours I've read here in this thread and elsewhere you write and think far better than many of my former students!
 
No it isn't.

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

Simply saying no it isn't will not change reality. There isn't a rule that says man landed on the moon either but the null hypothesis is still that it happened.


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

No evidence of any kind? That's quite an extraordinary claim, I do hope you have the extraordinary proof to support 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.

Except it clearly isn't since you can muster not one other poster here to accept your proposition. There is a de facto null hypothesis, Oswald acted alone, no one demands you accept it, in fact they have been asking you to lay out a plausible alternative for some time and you have failed to do so.

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.

The reality of the situation is Robert that the majority of the posters in this thread appear to accept the null hypothesis that Oswald acted alone, your various attempts to dispute this have been consistently rebutted over three threads, that is all the defence that is required, and given how often you repeat the same mistaken assertions posters are being rather generous to you by continuing to do so.
 
Bump for Robert:

(The below originally was posted by me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10743586#post10743586 )

Bob never did respond to this:

== QUOTE ==

It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.

Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

That is, in the Warren Commission narrative, Tague could have been wounded by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) AND have heard that third shot thereafter.

I addressed that issue many years ago. The trajectories just don't work. This is from an article I wrote sometime around the turn of the millenium.

The image below illustrates the minimum ascending angle necessary for a bullet fragment to have exited the President's head and flown out over the top of the windshield. Keep in mind that his head was tilted downward and forward at Z312, considerably lower than it is in this picture, which was taken as the limo departed Love Field.

Image3.gif


Had our hypothetical fragment continued at this angle, at a reasonably high velocity, it would have passed nearly 30 feet above the Main St. pavement, leaving the curbing and Mr. Tague completely unscathed. But that presumes a high velocity. Certainly, the fragment might have run out of gas and simply fallen to the area of the curbing. But if that happened, it would have lost most of its velocity and could not have struck the curbing with nearly enough force to have caused the lead to smear. The drawing below illustrates the principle.

Image4.gif


That's physics for you. So inconvenient to your theory.

I guess it's "inconvenient" for Posner and Bugliosi too then, since both of them deny the WC theory and claim the Tague wound was the result of a ricochet from the first shot:-)

But there is one expert who contradicts BOTH the WC and the LN guys. His name was James Tague and his recollection was that it was the second shot that caused his minor wound.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.

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 afterward.


Are you starting to see a pattern, Hank? Have you noticed that almost the witnesses support me and contradict you, even your own witnesses:-)

Your argument here applies to the convential narrative as well. In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot.

The 285 shot would not have been perceived to have arrived "afterward". I don't think you understand how this stuff works. The sounds associated with that shot would have seemed simultaneous, with no perceptible gaps.

And you're insisting on a new bullet at Z285 that nobody sees evidence for

That's untrue. There is a real world outside these little forums, full of hardcore advocates, in which people actually admit what they see.

thumbsup.png


(except you) while simultaneously explaining away the evidence of the bullet striking both men at Z223, claiming it was inaudible.

LOL! It was inaudible. That much is beyond dispute.

John Connally was very clear about that. He heard the 150-160 shot but only "felt" the one that hit him at 223. Nellie, Jackie, Greer, and Kellerman all heard the same thing - one shot, delay and then closely bunched shots at the end - exactly the same thing that most other witnesses heard.

I'm sure you understand Nellie, which you proved by refusing to answer those three little, fatal questions that all of you dodged:-)

And just to keep things straight, the fact that nobody heard that shot does not "explain it away". The shot was quite real and it wounded both JFK and Connally.

So convenient for your theory that the conspirators used a suppressed weapon for only one of the four shots, don't you think?

Wrong again. You know very well, that I explained to you the probable reason why that first shot was audible. It struck the pavement with considerable force, causing sparks to fly upward, causing the "firecracker" sound that many witnesses reported. The next shot only passed through human flesh, so it remained entirely inaudible to most witnesses.

Or maybe you're just assuming what you need to prove

Until you have a better explanation for why those witnesses only heard a single early shot and why there were no reactions then, even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313, you have no right to question my motives.

My conclusions are what any sane, objective man would come to. And you will prove that by failing to even try to present a better explanation.
 
Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

LOGICAL FALLACY known as a RED HERRING.

We were talking about the Tague shot, which you claim was near the end of the shooting, Robert.

Why are you suddenly switching to the early shots?

Hank
 
Simply saying no it isn't will not change reality. There isn't a rule that says man landed on the moon either but the null hypothesis is still that it happened.

But there are a couple of truckloads of evidence that men went to the moon. How much evidence do you have that proves Oswald acted alone?

No evidence of any kind? That's quite an extraordinary claim, I do hope you have the extraordinary proof to support it.

No sir, it's your theory; you bear the burden of proving. And several of your amigos have already admitted that there is no such evidence.

Except it clearly isn't since you can muster not one other poster here to accept your proposition.

You got me there. It's been tough selling my theory to people who refuse to view articles and presentations, and then report me to a LN/moderator who declares my annotated Zapruder segments to be "spam".

But I don't think everybody is like that. There are some who actually have the courage to consider evidence that points to a different conclusion. Of course, they aren't as loud as the hardcore types who refuse to look at the evidence and then claim that I don't have any:-)

There is a de facto null hypothesis, Oswald acted alone, no one demands you accept it, in fact they have been asking you to lay out a plausible alternative for some time and you have failed to do so.

You couldn't be more wrong. I have linked a comprehensive and detailed presentation which lays out my analysis from the start to finish. I have also posted a great deal of evidence in this forum, explaining quite clearly, that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, exactly as he said he did.

But thank you for confirming this little problem with people refusing to examine the evidence and then pretending it doesn't exist.

The reality of the situation is Robert that the majority of the posters in this thread appear to accept the null hypothesis that Oswald acted alone

Yes, but that only confirms that I haven't been persuasive enough to get them to look at the evidence. I will try harder.

your various attempts to dispute this have been consistently rebutted

I don't think you believe that, and you will prove it by failing to even try to tell me specifically, how I have been refuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom