|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th October 2015, 09:39 AM | #361 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
|
You gotta' love it! Bob addresses only one of my points in any detail; ignoring the overall point, and then throws a dozen counter questions at me which, apparently I am supposed to respond to in detail.
At the end of the day Bob has the same thing supporting his scenario: 1) ZERO hard evidence. 2) Recollections and claims ranging from 12-40 years after the assassination. 3) A recollection passed on by a ghostwriter that is at variance with any known public pronouncement JBC made in life. 4) A lynchpin character, known only to history as "that nurse". 5) Various claims made by Bob based on his own inferences and biases that are intended to tie 1-4 together trying to make it all look like a seamless whole. I've already engaged him on many of these claims over at Alt Assassination JFK (web address connective dots left out) and I refuse to keep doing it again at length over here. To assist, I would *love* to link to some of those exchanges, but I am still not allowed to do so here. (It won't even let me quote Bob's!) Therefore, I refer the interested go over there and do a newsgroup search on "BT George and Robert Harris CE399" and BT George Fragment". It should bring up some relevant threads. |
7th October 2015, 02:40 PM | #362 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
This is truly hilarious. You are trying to stick up for this guy, without even bothering to read his posts or realizing what he was saying. If a fellow nutter claimed that Oswald fired a howitzer, I'm sure you'd be cheering him on just like you are now
post #58 The hard evidence indicates two shots from Oswald's rifle were involved in the shooting and caused all the wounds in the two victims in the car. post #32 I've pointed out, repeatedly, that many of the witnesses' recollections you cite are fully consistent with only two shots being fired, with the impact on the head being heard as an additional third shot. I'm pretty sure I can find another dozen or so if you'd like me too. Would you also like me to cite him arguing that there was only one early shot at 223, and none before that? Terrible as Hank's arguments were, we should give him credit for actually addressing important issues that you and the others have been evading. He at least TRIED to deal with the fact that only one of the early shots were audible to most of the witnesses. When that argument failed, due to the visible reactions of 5 different witnesses to the first audible shot, exactly as each of them described, and prior to 223, he three in the towel and disappeared from the discussion. |
7th October 2015, 03:23 PM | #363 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
You're wasting my time and bandwidth. We have both agreed that suppressors were available for subsonic firearms in 1963, which you labelled as "stable".
And since the shot at 223 was heard by virtually no one, we know that it did not come from a high powered rifle, therefore it had to have come from a subsonic weapon. So why are you ONLY talking about some of the loudest, supersonic rifles on the planet?? And why won't you address the facts that only one of the early shots was even audible to most witnesses, and that there were NO visible startle reactions as we see following the shots at the end? http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif You've previously asserted (with zero documentation) that it was impossible for a subsonic round to pass through both JFK and Connally. But I'm not at all sure that's correct. I think the mass of the bullet and it's shape, would have a lot do with it's ability to penetrate. Don't you agree? And let me ask you another question. Let's suppose a sniper in the Daltex was using a subsonic, semi-automatic rifle. If he fired off two, almost simultaneous rounds, is it possible that the first one passed through Kennedy, and the second, which was fired as the barrel slightly rose (which it would naturally do), passed just above JFK's right shoulder and struck Connally? Now before everyone jumps all over me, I am NOT claiming that is what happened. I am only wondering if that is a reasonable possibility. There is considerable evidence, from the FBI reports, no less, which suggest that more bullets were recovered and flown back to Washington, than were later reported. Sorry - didn't mean to sound like a researcher, rather than a high school debater |
7th October 2015, 06:48 PM | #364 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Nobody else can say they are certain. Not you, not the cops, not the FBI, Warren Commission, or anybody else. They have to look at the preponderance of the collected evidence and arrive at a conclusion.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your disregard for acoustics is only outstripped by your knowledge of weapons, silencers, and ballistics. How loud something is measured in a controlled lab environment isn't always equally as loud in the real world. In my casual research into the paranormal, and in my 40 years as a musician I can tell you that sound is unreliable. Getting sound right in a studio with the best microphones plugged into a great soundboard, and fed into top quality recording software is a lot of work to make the recording sound like what you hear. Dealey Plaza was a concrete and brick canyon filled with excited human beings and one gunman. Everyone there heard and saw the event a little differently. |
8th October 2015, 09:14 AM | #365 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
A majority of people do not react by turning away from the source of a startling noise. But some do. Only Greer and John Connally reacted that way in the limo. The others dropped their heads.
Likewise, most of the other people in that basketball video dropped their heads. There is however, another kid who was standing next to the one I encircled, who actually turned around faster. Look closely at the frames just after with the large, red oval I superimposed. He is holding another basketball. Sandy argued that people do not react by turning away from a startling noise, therefore, Greer's turn was not caused by a loud noise. That is obviously, untrue and I proved that to him in McAdams' newsgroup. I have no idea why he thought he could get away with it here, though I suppose he assumed that you guys would agree with him, not matter how bad his arguments are. I have to give him credit for at least getting that one right:-)
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that the test you suggest is nonexistent, which might explain why I have never taken it. But expertise is only necessary when we are dealing with an uncertain issue. When three people simultaneously duck, during a shooting, and at precisely the same instant in which top scientists have concluded that there was a loud and startling noise, I don't think we need an expert to tell us why they ducked. That is especially true, when two others in the limo spun around and away from the source of the noise, in perfect unison with those who ducked. But if you really seek expertise, what is wrong with Dr. Alvarez, who determined that not only was Zapruder startled at 285, but that Greer made the terrible mistake of slowing the limo, because he too was reacting to that loud noise? We all know that Alvarez was mistaken about a siren being the cause of the reactions, but years later, the similarly qualified, Dr. Michael Stroscio suggested a much better explanation, "The association of the blast of a siren with the angular-acceleration episode that begins at frame 290 was made by Alvarez but he stated clearly that he was not sure this assignment was correct. Indeed, as correctly pointed out by Alvarez, most eyewitnesses claimed that siren sounded after the fatal wound to President Kennedy's head. These witnesses held that the siren first sounded well after frame 313 and the siren could not be responsible for the angular-acceleration episode that began at frame 290. Alvarez points out that eyewitnesses frequently have flawed memories of stressful events, but it is difficult, indeed, to understand why many witnesses would make the same error." and... ..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. In fact, since James Tague was standing near the triple underpass on the west side of Dealey Plaza, it is certain that he was struck by an object traveling west on Elm Street. Stroscio was also a brilliant physicist who has chaired Presidential science commissions. But I don't think he was aware of all the corroborations that existed, for his theory. Tague himself, testified that it was the second shot he heard that caused his minor wound. 285 was indeed, the second audible shot that day. And the 285 shot almost certainly, missed the President. But the shock wave from the passing bullet, caused Greer to feel it's "concussion". Of course, like Tague, he described that as happening when the SECOND shot was fired. A missed shot at 285 provides a perfect explanation for the Tague wound and the lead smear on Elm. St. It might have been fired by Oswald and it might have been a deliberate miss. His rifle was at the lower end of "high powered" rifles, in terms of bullet velocity. Not only did Alvarez confirm that Zapruder's reactions to 285 were weaker than to 313, but we see that as well in the passengers' reactions to each of the two shots. So, if Oswald fired at all, it is likely that he fired the 285 shot. |
9th October 2015, 02:27 PM | #366 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Why is it ridiculous to ask you for a demonstration of an ability you purport to have, whose product forms the key premise to your argument?
Quote:
Quote:
If you deny that no expertise is required, and if you insinuate that there can be no gradation in ability to make this attribution, then it follows you are no better at it than anyone else. That makes it hard for you to say that you're right about it and everyone else is wrong. |
9th October 2015, 02:51 PM | #367 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
I don't waste time on pointless arguments. The fact that the witnesses did not mention this nurse's name, means nothing. All that matters is that they correctly reported what she said and did. And their mutual corroborations proved that they were correct.
Quote:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png CE399 could not have been the same bullet that Tomlinson found, which is hardly surprising, since neither he nor anyone else who handled it prior to the FBI, would corroborate it as the same bullet. O.P. Wright, Tomlinson's supervisor and an ex-police officer stated that the original had a much more pointed tip than CE399.
Quote:
On 11/30/63, they lied, claiming that Dr. Gregory told them he removed only a single fragment from Connally's wrist. And on 11/26/63, they manipulated the evidence, so that the DPD records showed Bell's envelope only containing a single fragment - all for the obvious purpose of trying to make it appear that Bell gave her envelope to Nolan, whose evidence envelope really did contain a single item. I cite each of those demonstrable lies, verbatim, in the section you just deleted, in its entirety. Have you figured out yet, what happened to the initials of agent Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, neither of which are present on CE399? Or why all four of the men who examined the stretcher bullet refused to confirm that it was CE399? Or why the FBI phoned Tomlinson in the wee hours of the morning, immediately after receiving fragments that they could match up against his bullet and telling him to keep his mouth shut about it? Or why the FBI lied about what supervisor Bell told them, claiming she said she gave a single "fragment" to Nolan? Bell BTW, told the HSCA the same thing she told the ARRB 20 years earlier. I used to think it was an honest mistake that they referred to a single fragment, rather than four as can be easily seen in CE-842. But guess what - they made the same "mistake" when they interviewed doctor Gregory. This is from an FBI report dated 11/30/63. Gregory testified before the WC, correctly describing multiple tiny fragments, but according to the FBI, he only talked about one. He (Gregory) states surgery performed by him was done on the Governor's right arm, and that he removed from the arm a small fragment of metal. He stated the metal fragment was placed into a transparent container for preservation, and that during the operation, he recalled no other pieces or bits of metal being removed from the Governor's body. Another honest mistake?? How about this then? The DPD (undoubtedly with the FBI's help) labelled CE-842 as containing only a single "fragment". Looking at the outside of the envelope, they would have seen the word "fragments". On the inside, four fragments, at least three of which were easily visible. http://jfkhistory.com/singlefragment.png Another "mistake"? The FBI couldn't say her envelope had multiple fragments as it actually did, because they were going to pass it off as the one Nolan had, which of course, really did contain a single object. |
9th October 2015, 03:04 PM | #368 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Nonsense. If you think my questions contain unproven assumptions then address them, and explain your complaint.
All you are doing is fabricating excuses for why you have to evade the tough questions. I asked those questions because no sane person would express certainty about any of the denials I raised, and you obviously agree, which is why you can only provide excuses rather than answers. Address the issues directly and honestly. So far, you've posted dozens of excuses for why you cannot answer my questions and challenges and almost zero answers. I cannot imagine how it feels, defending a position in which all I could do is run |
9th October 2015, 03:09 PM | #369 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
He is talking about the two shots that cause all the wounds. Clearly, the first, missed shot is not under discussion here. Everyone is agreed, or so I thought (even you, I mean), that there was a first, missed shot.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, "only one of the early shots" begs the question. You rely on a premise you have failed to prove. You have quite a talent for taking people's words out of context. The first shot was not under discussion at all at this point of your conversation. He is saying that two shots caused all the wounds. I have never seen him try to argue away the evidence for a first shot that missed. A desultory search turns up Hank Sienzant, on 30th August 2015, writing here, "There's no evidence for four or five shots (more witnesses heard two shots than heard four or more) and there's no evidence for the additional shooters you conjecture." And here's Hank earlier in the thread, 1st April 2012, 11:39 AM, before you came along... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...22556&page=129 Someone, evidently confused, asked, "Can I just get this straight, please. Are we all agreeing that however many shots there there was definitely a 3-shot sequence thus: Shot 1: Kennedy hit in throat; Shot 2: Connaly hit in back; Shot 3: Kennedy hit in head." And Hank replied: "No. One shot missed. Kennedy had a back wound that your theory above doesn't account for." Here's Hank again on the first shot... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...22556&page=132 "...some ascribe the first shot miss to buck fever, others to the inclination of the shot." Etc. |
9th October 2015, 03:48 PM | #370 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
The spasmodic contraction of neck muscles, pulling the head down toward the shoulders, in which the spasmodic, involuntary reaction consists, as is described in papers on the topic, has nothing to do with the direction of the startling sound. It's a flinching that is utterly automatic.
Wow. This really takes the cake. I am a fairly intelligent person, and I would never say or think anything as asinine as that. But you've claimed that before, Bob, at the other forum, and you have been corrected more than once already. I have used it as a classic example of the way your misrepresent your interlocutors. You evidently still do not understand my argument. Certainly, startled people may turn away from (and sometimes toward) the sound that startled them! But that isn't the automatic, involuntary, spasmodic motion that can be caused by extremely loud sounds, as described in the scientific literature on startle reflex reactions. My point has consistently been that you do not understand the difference between reflex and deliberate actions. You habitually confuse things people typically do when startled (in the general, non-clinical sense) with the specific, limited range of reactions caused when the startle reflex reaction is triggered. The basketball player's turning to run away is not a reflex reaction. I'm sure he would have had such a reaction, but you can't see him flinch, as his head is not visible then. Turning and running away, though, requires some at least semi-conscious deliberation. (Yes, people can react non-reflexively within a third of a second too.) I have time and again explained that it seems to me you are reading something unintended into your cherished line from the Britannica (from which, at least until recently, you tended to omit the word "spasmodic"). I challenged you to present an explicit description of spinning around, similar to Greer's action, that is given as an example of a startle reflex reaction in the relevant scientific literature. The startle reaction involving the head that I have read about (the contraction of the neck muscles, etc.), does not fit that case. Now, it would be easy for you to refute me, if you really knew what you were talking about, regarding startle reflex reactions. You should have such a citation right at the tip of your fingers, ready to throw back at me. |
9th October 2015, 10:06 PM | #371 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
You simply have not followed Hank's argument very well. Here he is in this thread, talking to Robert Prey before Robert Harris showed up, http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=8963385... on Old 3rd February 2013: "Governor Conna[l]ly never insisted he was hit by a separate bullet as you above claim, but he did insist he was hit by the second one. If the first shot missed the car and the passengers, and the second hit both the President and the Governor, as the Governor conceded was possible, your claim is falsified." Which is clearly what Hank thinks happened. And the headshot makes three. Not four. You always conflate the accounts that speak of the last two shots as "close" together but which meant by that a matter of seconds with other accounts of two near-simultaneous sounds, the second of which is explicable as an echo or the impact to the president's skull. |
10th October 2015, 12:31 AM | #372 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
I have no obligation to address your fantasy construct, but will continue to post factual information refuting your assertions wrt the little corner of this universe that I'm most familiar with.
Other posters and lurkers will be able to read the material at the links I posted and make up their minds for themselves about who knows what they they are talking about and who doesn't, but just for the record I'll quote you again: "The shock wave emanates from the bullet itself, NOT from the muzzle." You are completely wrong in this assertion and no amount of misdirection and moving the goal posts is going to change that: "01) What do sound suppressors do? 10/22/2012 There are four noises which make up the “boom” one hears when shooting a firearm. The first is the action noise (i.e.: the hammer hitting the firing pin, the slide/bolt cycling, gas escaping though the ejection port). The second is the bullet flight noise. If the round travels faster than the speed of sound, which is approximately 1050fps, there will be an audible “crack” heard by the shooter and those the projectile passes. The third is the bullet striking the target. The last noise associated with the firing of a firearm is the combustion noise hitting the atmosphere when the projectile leaves the barrel. The gasses that pushed the projectile from the barrel are going faster than the speed of sound and typically still burning. The “boom” of the gasses hitting the atmosphere is typically louder than the other noises, which is why the boom generally is all the shooter and those near the shooter hear." http://www.advanced-armament.com/FAQs_ep_41-1.html#55 All your Gish Gallop doesn't obscure the fact that you don't know anything about firearms and no amount of rhetorical jive is going to change that. |
10th October 2015, 05:54 AM | #373 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Tough questions such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Do you understand the problem with a begged question? If not, why not?
Quote:
Do you yet understand the problem with begged questions? Also, since you've agreed that there is no special skill involved in determining perceived movements in a silent film as reactions to sound stimulus, then I am able to say that your opinion is incorrect about any movements being reflex actions to gunshots. |
10th October 2015, 10:14 AM | #374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
I have explained myself sufficiently several times.
The "unproven assumption" (although that's not what it means to beg the question) is that pointing to some person's movement in a YouTube video that you know contains a loud noise would prove your ability to determine, from movement in a different silent film, when a gun is being fired. You beg the question when you ask your reader to play along with the notion that those loaded examples must be probative of your method applied to Zapruder. You then pose questions loaded with that assumption, and try to shame your critics for "evasion" when they don't fall for it and decline to answer. My complaint is that in all of 20 years purporting this ability and having this criticism raised several times, you've never thought to arrange such a test. I can also quibble about your ongoing misunderstanding of logical terms that have been used in this discussion, but I will address it below in a less personalized way.
Quote:
Quote:
A proponent puts his arguments in a circle in order to hide their lack of foundation. Circling the arguments creates the illusion of one thing following logically from the next, and draws attention away from the entire argument's vacuous isolation from the rest of the facts. Animating the circle takes the form of looking at each segment narrowly, asking the opponent to agree that it logically follows. Circular arguments often arise also by accident, in which case the proponent is usually the last to see it. Or sometimes the proponent just doesn't want to see it because he thinks he has an airtight case in it. The rhetorical construction around the circular argument relies upon maintaining the narrow focus so that the "big picture" flaw is out of bounds. Sometimes the circle turns upon one begged question, but often the begging is disguised well enough. The savvy opponent realizes that a rebuttal can rarely attach at such fine focus, so rightly declines the proponent's fervent desire to keep that focus -- a desire fueled typically by personalized criticism. The successful rebuttal must take an overarching view of the argument and lay it out simply and rapidly enough that the circle is visible. I have done this. Showing other video where you've interpreted "startles" after the fact doesn't prove you can do it before the fact.
Quote:
You stubbornly deny as immaterial the very fatal structural flaws in your argument. These can be seen, discussed, and analyzed -- and fail your argument -- without even needing to look at evidence. In fact, when we teach and study them, we merely contrive the facts in the examples in order to enliven them. This isn't just sophistry or intellectual elitism, as you've insinuated before. The ability to understand what actually makes a valid argument valid is vital to the intellectual process. It's not something that can be pooh-poohed away, or that plays second fiddle. The evidentiary issues in your claim boil down to two key premises: (1) that any time Oswald's rifle was fired, bystanders would have heard a 130-decibel shock wave; and (2) that you can tell from people's movement in the Zapruder film when a gun was being fired. I've quizzed you three or four times on (1) and you don't have the science chops to talk about it. You just punt every time to Berger and think that proves everything. Unfortunately science is something that does require expertise, unequivocally, so if you can't demonstrate the expertise yourself, your premise fails then and there. For (2) you freely admit your ability to do what you claim to be able to do has never been tested. Why should anyone believe you then? You don't seem to understand why your various YouTube videos don't provide a test of that ability. That's the circular argument. You try to spear your way out of that vortex of illogic by suggesting some things are unmistakably obvious and can be observed without training or expertise. Your invocation of Alvarez then evaporates as moot, and you have to turn to the inescapable numerical fact that so very many people simply aren't seeing what you see -- which is to say, they don't agree that the interpretation and attribution parts of your argument are obvious. Since you can't prove either of your two key premises, upon which your entire argument rests, then it fails. |
10th October 2015, 02:52 PM | #375 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
How about Arnold Rowland's testimony? If it is correct, he saw a man holding a rifle with scope, at the 6th floor window on the opposite end from Oswlald's.
I searched ISF and saw only a little discussion about whether or not he saw what he said he saw. Did Rowland imagine it, or see a security guard, or another shooter, or did he see Oswald in the process of choosing a window? Rowland pointing to the window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y9_d9L6NOU His testimony: |
10th October 2015, 09:24 PM | #376 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Yes, I am no better than anyone else, excepting the blind and those with serious mental issues, or insane levels of bias.
When I first posted here, pretty much everyone, including you, supported the notion that the limo passengers were thrown forward by Greer slamming on the brakes. It was only after I refuted that theory that some of you started claiming that you see no reactions at all. Others over the years have tried to argue that the reactions were the result of a backfire and in one or two cases, a siren, as Alvarez suggested. Several of those nutters also shifted gears and adopted the "what reactions?" argument, like you are doing, after their plan A failed. These are the reactions: http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif If you really want to claim that no one was reacting then, then address the questions that you have been evading. 1. Why did all of the passengers begin to duck or spin around, in the same 1/6th of one second? How could that have been the result of voluntary actions? 2. How do you explain the fact that the limo passengers began to react in the same 1/18th of a second that Zapruder did, as confirmed by Alvarez? 3. How do you explain the fact that "most" of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, including the people we see reacting (or whatever u want to call it) described closely bunched shots which match shots at 285 and 313, and contradict the lone nut theory, as presented by the WC, and 99.99% of all other lone nut advocates? 4. How do you explain why no one was ducking or spinning around at extreme speed, prior to frame 285? It is the facts that you refuse to discuss, that prove my case. |
10th October 2015, 09:30 PM | #377 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
True enough. That is what Hank believed and probably "believes". He only shifted gears when I came along and pointed out that only one of the early shots were audible.
After I leave, which someday I probably will, he will undoubtedly go back to the standard LN theory. In the meantime, you need to stop being his spokesman. Somebody here undoubtedly has his email address. Tell him to come here and speak for himself. |
10th October 2015, 10:18 PM | #378 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Why do you keep using the term, "spasmodic"? Are you still claiming as you did in mcadam's forum that because we see no "spasms" at 285, they weren't startled?
You dropped that idiotic argument after I pointed out that you NEVER see spasms in the Zapruder film, or pretty much any others, because they are much to subtle to be visible.
Quote:
http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
Quote:
In the meantime, can we agree that the loud, startling noise was the cause of this kid (as well as the one in front of him, who spun faster), turning away from the source of the sound? http://jfkhistory.com/bb.gif If so, can we also agree that Bill Greer could have spun away from the source of a gunshot, for the same reason? And speaking of Greer, why do you suppose he began to turn to the front, so rapidly that alterationists believed his turn was humanly impossible, and in the same 1/6th of a second, that three others ducked or spun around, and Zapruder reacted, as confirmed by Dr. Alvarez? And why do you suppose he slowed the limo, as he was spinning around? Was he "in on it"? Or do you think he just might have done that because he was reacting to a loud noise at 285, as Dr. Alvarez suggested? And finally, do you think a 130 decibel shock wave, just might have had anything do with the "concussion" he felt as he was turned to the rear during the second shot he heard? |
15th October 2015, 02:09 PM | #379 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
|
Well, not sure if this really changes the narrative of the day, but the extent of the CIA plotting Castro's demise and trailed Oswald does shake things up a bit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-l...ory&soc_trk=tw |
15th October 2015, 02:54 PM | #380 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
Bob, I've gone back and read in context the two posts from Hank which you quoted here. It is indeed true that Hank recently advanced a theory, based on the fact that we only have fragments from two bullets from Oswald's gun, that perhaps there was no shot before 223. He has not, however, argued that he can prove that there was no earlier, missed shot. The fact is, we have fragments from only the two bullets that struck their target, which were traced back to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons in existence. The hard evidence for a first, missed shot is merely an empty cartridge, and the circumstantial evidence is not entirely conclusive, though I think an early, missed shot is very probable. It is also my impression that Hank still thinks this (an earlier missed shot) is the most plausible scenario. He merely said he couldn't prove it. I can wholeheartedly endorse Hank's point that the theory that there was only one early shot is more plausible than your theory, your contention (of which you are convinced) that there must have been other "early shots" by subsonic weapons, merely because nobody heard shots (which no one saw either, or felt...) that you have convinced yourself on untenable grounds "must have" been fired. But it isn't necessary to go so far to invalidate your theory about muffled, subsonic shots, as it is based on nothing more than your subjective impression that people should be "reacting" a certain way at certain points in the Zapruder film if muffled, subsonic weapons were not used to make shots for which no evidence whatsoever exists. |
16th October 2015, 10:21 AM | #381 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
Ha! And I didn't either, in the early pages of the "new" thread. I forgot his proposal of a theory of no missed, early shot.
But I believe I am correct in my impression that this is not something Hank firmly believes happened or to be the most likely possibility but only a theory that makes a lot more sense than postulating that there must have been muffled, subsonic shots merely because Robert Harris doesn't see anybody "reacting" the way he thinks they would. I don't think anything can be proved from the ear-witness accounts, but that they do not, in the final analysis, contradict the hard physical evidence that says Oswald fired the shots. A while back my eyes started glazing over whenever the topic of your phantom early shots was under discussion. |
17th October 2015, 10:52 AM | #382 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It is unclear what you're arguing here. Are you claiming your critics come to a different judgment than you because they are biased to the point of insanity? After 20 years of having people (I'm guessing dozens or hundreds at this point) give you the same potent rebuttals, does it really make a convincing argument to insinuate you're the only one with the appropriate insight to evaluate the evidence?
It's clear you can't do the physics. It's clear you don't know how the psychology works. Yet your judgments on these points form the premises to your argument. Perhaps it is these obviously demonstrated shortcomings in your premises that explain why your theory is roundly rejected, not that all your critics are insane or biased.
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th October 2015, 11:23 AM | #383 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Why have you typically elided it from the Britannica quote? I use it because it is an accurate description of a reflex.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I said that startle reactions can be too subtle to see in a low-res film.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Really, Bob, I thought you had read something about this. The literature says the neck muscles contract so as to protect the neck. It is an uncontrollable (i.e., spasmodic) action. Let's stick with "your" experts. Googling "startle reflex" neck "Landis and Hunt": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response Usually the onset of the startle response is a reflex reaction. The startle reflex is a brainstem reflectory reaction (reflex) that serves to protect the back of the neck (whole-body startle) and the eyes (eyeblink) and facilitates escape from sudden stimuli. https://books.google.com/books?id=pS...unt%22&f=false ..essentially as Landis and Hunt had described:...both surface and deeper muscles of the neck tighten. https://books.google.com/books?id=g8...unt%22&f=false The minimal reaction consists of a blink of the eyes, with slight flexion of the neck due to contraction of sternocleidomastoid.... In Brown et al.'s...interpretation the earliest recorded activity in the true startle response is in the sternocleidomastoid, indicating an origin in the low brainstem. Activity in the startle-induced generalized jerk then spreads up the brainstem and down the spinal cord to produce the flexion response. The facial muscles thus have a double response, the first from the blink reflex and the second from the startle response. [Emphasis added.] Googling "startle reflex" head "Landis and Hunt" https://books.google.com/books?id=en...unt%22&f=false In humans, the startle pattern consists of a forward thrusting of the head and a descending flexor wave reaction extending through the trunk and the knees (Landis and Hunt, 1939). https://books.google.com/books?id=bO...unt%22&f=false The startle pattern always is marked by a blinking of the eyes, and in the normal picture it includes "head movement foreward, a characteristic facial expression, raising and drawing forward of the shoulders, abduction of the lower arms, bending of the elbows, pronation of the lower arms, flexion of the fingers, forward movement of the trunk, contraction of the abdomen, and bending of the knees... It is a basic reaction, not amenable to voluntary control... ... Significantly, the younger the infant in these experiments, the less secondary behavior accompanied the startle.... "...our work shows," continue Landis and Hunt, "that as the infant develops, more and more secondary behavior appears... Crying and escape behavior—either a turning of the head away from the sound source or actual turning of the body and creeping away—are increasingly frequent with age." [Emphasis in original.] So, to summarize, the startle response is an automatic contraction of certain neck muscles that thrusts the head forward. Now it is (and it already was) your turn. Nowhere have I seen spinning around as Greer does given as an example of a startle reflex. If you have, let's see it.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, as my mom used to say? Of course people will turn and run away from explosions. Like, duh. That doesn't prove anything at all about what we see in the Z film.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
As for your "130-decibel shock wave," I see that you have not paid any attention to the critiques offered here of your assumed expertise. |
17th October 2015, 11:32 AM | #384 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
There isn't much new here. We've known about the CIA plots against Castro since the 1975 Church Committee report (and Jack Anderson's reports beginning in 1971). But Oswald probably read something about them in the communist papers, and he probably told himself this justified his murdering Kennedy. This aspect of his motivation is conspicuously absent from the Warren Commission Report.
But of course the CIA was monitoring a former (attempted) defector. (Reading his mail, imagine!) What would have embarrassed them, and the FBI too, was that they didn't do such a good job of it. The FBI even lost track of Oswald for a time after he moved to New Orleans. |
17th October 2015, 11:39 AM | #385 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
People can contact him individually through this forum, actually. But I wouldn't dream of dragging him back into another pointless discussion with you. He made his points very well, but you have evaded them all. For example, the one I brought up at the end of the post you just responded to:
You always conflate the accounts that speak of the last two shots as "close" together but which meant by that a matter of seconds with other accounts of two near-simultaneous sounds, the second of which is explicable as an echo or the impact to the president's skull. |
17th October 2015, 01:50 PM | #386 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
|
18th October 2015, 11:55 AM | #387 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
I've never heard you laugh before when you were proven wrong. Why are you starting now?
Quote:
I already did. In McAdams' forum, I cited Britannica, stating that a symptom of startle reactions is "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.".
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A Claiming that we cannot be sure of that because we see no "spasm" is a pathetic and very lame argument. It just isn't worthy of a response. The same is true for these reactions: http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif |
18th October 2015, 11:59 AM | #388 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
|
18th October 2015, 12:06 PM | #389 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Since my critics seem to have hit an all time low recently, I'm going to take some time off and try to get a couple new presentations out before 11/22. In the meantime, I recommend these links to anyone who is open-minded enough to objectively consider the facts and evidence:
http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s And this longer presentation, which covers the shooting from start to finish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE |
19th October 2015, 09:19 AM | #390 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Yes, you are correct. I was utilizing the same eyewitness testimony that Bob was citing to point out there's another scenario possible that doesn't invoke unheard, unseen rifles with unseen assassins, nor does it utilize presumptions about what reactions can be divined from a silent film, that fits the eyewitness testimony at least as well as his theory, if not better.
Including the fact that three shots were heard and that the last two were bunched -- and as the nearest witnesses said -- nearly simultaneous (Bob would have you believe "almost simultaneous" is about two seconds apart). It's fascinating that, if you select the testimony you want, and ignore everything else, including all the hard evidence -- which is exactly what Bob's doing -- you can support almost any theory you want. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
19th October 2015, 09:45 AM | #391 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
He saw Oswald.
His description of the man he saw fits Oswald. == quote == Mr. SPECTER - Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw? Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender. Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height? Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective. Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what? Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair. Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then? Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian. Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair? Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black. ... Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the age of that man? Mr. ROWLAND - This is again just my estimation. He was--I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his early thirties. This could be obscured because of the distance, I mean. Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the weight of the man in addition to the line of proportion which you have already described? Mr. ROWLAND - I would say about 140 to 150 pounds. ... Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, did the man with the rifle have any distinctive facial appearance such as a mustache or a prominent scar, anything of that sort which you could observe? Mr. ROWLAND - There was nothing dark on his face, no mustache. There could have. been a scar if it hadn't been a dark scar. If it was, you know, a blotch or such as this, there was nothing very dark about the color of his face. Causcasion, slender, about 140-150 lbs. No facial hair, short hair, dark hair. Sounds like this guy: http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/..._oswald-P.jpeg And of course, the clincher: It was Oswald's weapon that was found on the same floor as where Rowland saw the man with the rifle fitting Oswald's description. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
19th October 2015, 10:09 AM | #392 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Castro's famous threat to the U.S. was carried in many newspapers in September of 1963 (and highlighted in THE DAILY WORKER and THE MILITANT, two communist papers Oswald subscribed to): "United States leaders should think that if they are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe."
Oswald, of course, infamously told Michael Paine about a month before the assassination that one could figure out what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines: == quote == Mr. LIEBELER - Did you know that Oswald received mail at your house from Irving, Tex? Mr. PAINE - Yes. ... Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever discuss these publications with Oswald? Mr. PAINE - Yes, we talked with regard to the Daily Worker. He said that, he told me, that you could tell what they wanted you to do, they, a word I dislike, what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines, reading the thing and doing a little reading between the lines. He then gave me an issue to look and see. I wanted to see if I could read between the lines and see what they wanted you to do. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you read the particular issue that he referred to? Mr. PAINE - I tried to. I don't think I had very much patience to go through it. Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember what particular issue it was? Mr. PAINE - No, I didn't notice. Mr. LIEBELER - Can you set the date of this discussion that you had with Oswald? Mr. PAINE - That was fairly soon after his coming back. So let's say the middle of October. Mr. LIEBELER - Did he discuss with you, your ability or inability to determine what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines after you had read the publication? Mr. PAINE - No, I just handed it back to him. Mr. LIEBELER - Was there anything else said between you at that time on that subject? Mr. PAINE - He asked me how did I like it. Mr. LIEBELER - What did you say? Mr. PAINE - And I tried to be polite. I said it was awful extreme, I thought. Mr. LIEBELER - Did he respond to that? Mr. PAINE - I think that was the end of it. == unquote == http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
19th October 2015, 04:02 PM | #393 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,438
|
New study done of the backyard photo using 3D models; they conclude that it's real.
Original article: http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl...e/view/321/253 Smithsonian article on above: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...ssin-180956991 The latter comments that the authors have done other studies on this photo, with the same result. |
__________________
"Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die." |
|
20th October 2015, 02:39 AM | #394 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
The much discussed photograph of Oswald, in the garden, with the rifle (obviously a Cluedo expansion ) is real. According to an article in the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law. A group led by Hany Farid used 3D imaging technology to analyse details of the photograph, including Oswald's pose, and found that the photo is indeed authentic.
Originally Posted by Hany Farid
So, again, case closed. Not that mere facts will change the opinions of the conspiracy peddlers. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
20th October 2015, 12:49 PM | #395 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
21st October 2015, 11:07 AM | #396 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
For what it's worth...
Quote:
Another nail in the coffin of those who claim Oswald was "just a patsy"... |
22nd October 2015, 10:19 AM | #397 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
22nd October 2015, 11:27 AM | #398 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Anybody can go back to the first time you brought out this quote on this forum, as well as just about every time you cited it on alt.assassination.jfk and see that you "typically" (as I also said a couple weeks ago, "until recently") elided that word.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
That startle reflex reactions are often too subtle to be seen in a film like the one under discussion is something you admit, although it demolishes your argument based on the supposed absence of such reactions in certain parts of the film. Apparently, though, this is lost on you too. |
22nd October 2015, 03:13 PM | #399 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Naturally I can think of some reasons other than "extreme bias" why a person might come to a different conclusion than you regarding the evidence. For those thoughts, please see almost literally every post I've made to you since you arrived. You seem to have precluded that any of those reasons could possibly be rational. And no, just because I can think of reasons other than "extreme bias" why people might disagree with you, that doesn't absolve you of your burden of proof for your preferred reason.
But no, I'm not about to dignify your latest loaded question. "Biased to the point of insanity" is not the same as "biased because of insanity." You have missed the point. You don't get to jump over your judgment that your critics are biased, and thereafter bog down in speculation over why you think they are or why another person might think they're not. If you're going to say that people disagree with you only (or chiefly) because they're "extreme[ly] bias[ed]," then you'll need to show why your judgment on that point is the one best supported by evidence. |
23rd October 2015, 10:28 AM | #400 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
Nowhere have I ever said anything about seeing spasms themselves (muscular contractions, under the skin!), only about seeing the result in spasmodic motions. If Kellerman raised his shoulders as part of a startle reflex reaction, this would be an example (but we really don't know why he raised his shoulders). On the other hand, startle reflex reactions are often much subtler than that, to be sure. Not only can they not be definitely discerned in the Z-film, but nothing can be adduced from an alleged absence of them in certain frames.
Of course this guy was startled, and I'd say we're seeing a startle reflex reaction. Look at his head drop down... and forward. Just as described in the citations I provided on the type of head movement that is described in the literature. So I do hope you will stop referring to Landis and Hunt whenever you mention that Greer spun his head around. Sure, he may have been startled, but that wasn't a reflex reaction, which is what Landis and Hunt wrote about. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|