|
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. |
3rd September 2015, 07:46 PM | #121 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
As I pointed out the first time you brought it up, and a few times since, the argument you advance here was brought up by another poster just prior to your arrival in the prior thread.
A pity you didn't read any of it. Here's one of my responses to you on that subject, which contains a link to the prior's poster's argument. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3236 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 |
|
3rd September 2015, 07:58 PM | #122 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
A simple question:
Given the circumstances, what is the most likely cause of the reactions following 285? |
3rd September 2015, 08:01 PM | #123 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Another simple question:
Bill Greer testified that he heard nothing he recognized as a gunshot, prior to the end of the attack. So why did he spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turns were humanly impossible, at the same instant that he slowed the limo? |
3rd September 2015, 08:19 PM | #124 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Just a thought:
It is gamesmanship to demand proof that the reactions following 285 were caused by a gunshot. The simple fact that they were being shot at at the time, makes it a certainty beyond reasonable doubt. http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif And if that isn't enough for some of you, there is the fact that the people who reacted, SAID they were hearing gunshots then. And the fact that there are no plausible alternatives. If you still cannot accept what is ridiculously obvious, then at least ask yourself, what is the most probable explanation for those reactions? Your answer will determine what the most probable answer to the conspiracy question is. |
3rd September 2015, 08:24 PM | #125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
This is a hearsay statement. It's from a book. Connally, curiously, never testified to any such bullet in his Warren Commission testimony or HSCA testimony. Perhaps you would explain why he failed to mention it to the two investigations 14 years apart.
But Wade himself, in that interview, gave his opinion of what you can read or see in the press: A: You had all kinds of reports from press. Any police officer on the street who opened his mouth, you'd see it on television in five minutes. A newspaper article is only hearsay, not evidence. Hopefully you understand that. An unsworn statement, 30 years after the fact, isn't evidence either. Wade's claims at that late date are meaningless. So your unsworn statement from Nolan is 49 years after the event and this, to you, is evidence? Nolan cannot corroborate anything that late in the game, not least because he said he never looked in the envelope. Anything he might say is just hearsay, it is not from his own experience. You really need to understand what evidence is. And what it is not. It is not 49-year-later recollections of hearsay about what an envelope contained. And it's not 30-year later recollections of hearsay about a second rifle on a different floor. I have no intention of rebutting every conspiracy article you can cite on the web. No. I'm claiming you're citing non-evidence in the above... hearsay from ghost-written books and newspaper articles and recollections (some unsworn) from 15 years, 30 years, and 49(!) years after the event (from respectively, Bell, Wade, and Nolan). None of that is persuasive to me. And I am surprised it is at all persuasive to you. I suggest you read up on hearsay, and find out what the current thinking is on long-term memory. Except, of course, the original CE399 bullet did fall off Connally's gurney - or hospital stretcher - and was recovered by a janitor on a different floor from the operating room. It certainly appears from here Connally and Nolan incorporated portions of what they read later into their memory banks as a false memory -- something that is more common than you apparently realize and make no pretensions of even trying to eliminate. It appears from here that Henry Wade simply put himself in the middle of the case. He never mentioned seeing this bullet in his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission less than a year after the fact, for example: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/wade.htm In the above SWORN testimony of his, his only mention of a "bullet" involves one from the Tippit case. His only mention of "fragment" involves fragmentary information. Search it yourself. You have no evidence, only non-evidence. Are you simply taking unsworn hearsay claims made three decades after the fact at face value, simply because you like what was claimed? It appears that way from here. Nolan was a uniformed officer, was he not? The FBI agents would be in suits, would they not? You appear to be arguing at cross-purposes. The ARRB interviewed Bell how many decades after the fact? It was in 1998, was it not? You find her recollections from 35 years after the fact meaningful? I don't. And really, you should not either. From the various recollections cited, I really don't even know what you're trying to establish. One bullet? Nurse Audrey Bell insists it was multiple fragments. And hers is the only sworn testimony you cite. So you've got a hearsay claim from a book about a bullet, a 35-year later sworn statement about a recollection of some fragments, a 49-year after the fact recollection of some hearsay, a hearsay newspaper claim 30 years after the fact... not one bit of solid evidence in the bunch. Need some valid evidence, Bob. Quotes of unsworn hearsay recollections from 30 years after the fact are meaningless. Hearsay claims from ghost-written books are meaningless. Hearsay claims about what an envelope supposedly contained 49 years after the fact are meaningless. Especially when they contradict each other - it apparently doesn't bother you that one person spoke of fragments, while others spoke of a whole bullet. The fact that they contradict each other, not corroborate each other, appears not to matter to you. They all spoke of *something or other*, and that's apparently close enough. 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 |
|
3rd September 2015, 08:32 PM | #126 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
And now we're up to as many as seven shots during the assassination, according to Robert Harris.
1. A shot prior to Z133 2. A shot at Z150-160 3. A shot at Z223 4. A shot at Z285 5. A shot at Z313 6&7. A minimum of two more shots after Z313. Yet most of the witnesses heard no more than three. And some of the men closest to the limousine, with firearms experience, heard only two. Wow, Bob. Just wow. Perhaps you might want to clarify just how many shots you are positive is the upper limit here. It seems to be creeping upward with almost every post. Is the upper limit 10? 15? 20? And could you spell out all the shooting locations and the evidence for those locations? 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 |
|
3rd September 2015, 09:42 PM | #127 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
USSOCOM didn't start mounting them on .556 carbines (Car-15, M-16A2, M-4) until the mid-1980s after there was development in the technology. I can't find the article in Recoil Magazine which went into great detail on the history and the hows and whys of the technology. In the book, "Running Recon: A photo Journey with SOG Special Ops Along the Ho Chi Minh Trail" by Frank Greco, all of their weapons are detailed including their secret weapons. There is a full page of silenced weapons. Nothing larger than the .45 caliber rifle and these were all for close contact, not for use at distance. There is a five to seven year tine span from 1963 to when these weapons were used in Vietnam. Most of MACVSOG's silent weapons were of WWII vintage. If MACVSOG didn't have a rifle capable of a Dallas-style shooting then it is safe to say that no such weapon was available. This is the part where you have to reveal a Stoner or Browning prototype that nobody has ever seen. Here's the thing about guns in America: The people who are into guns tend to know a lot about them. Hand gun people know other hand gun people, long gun people know other long gun people. Marksmen know marksmen. Marksmen discuss rifles with each other in detail. They write books on their weapons of choice. They also keep track of prototypes and emerging firearm tech. There are dozens of firearms message boards filled with all kinds of gun lovers. I can't find mention of any other silent rifles that would have been present in Dallas in 1963. There was no silenced weapon used in the assassination. |
4th September 2015, 01:54 PM | #128 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
I'll do better than that. I'll show you in your own words: First you write:
Quote:
So, here, you're arguing that "common sense" dictates something other than the evidence. You're dismissing actual corroborated testimony from multiple sources because you don't like what it says. But here you write: So, you're demanding evidence from those who disagree with you that far, far exceeds the level of evidence you've previously disregarded. You won't accept multiply corroborated witness statements about a bullet but you demand what exactly? Film of Oswald in the TSBD directed by Fellini with Pope Paul getting an Associate Producer credit? The changing levels of evidence that you employ to accept some things and and reject others is what makes you a very, very bad historian. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
4th September 2015, 02:01 PM | #129 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Actually, you don't seem to be able to find the time to justify your own ridiculous, unproven opinions and inferences, which is pretty much all you've posted in any of your messages.
Quote:
Any chance of you coming up wiith that evidence? |
4th September 2015, 02:07 PM | #130 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Actually, Oswald did fire three shots. Have you even watched any of the videos I posted earlier? Were you able to refute any part of them?
Quote:
At which frames do you infer Oswald's three proven shots to have been? Also, at which frames do you infer shots from the storm drain? |
4th September 2015, 05:07 PM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Shifting the burden of proof and begging the question. You have an affirmative claim for what's happening in that frame. No one else but you is responsible for establishing that claim. "Reactions" and "the circumstances" are just another way of stating your argument and asking others to disprove it with an affirmative counterclaim.
|
4th September 2015, 11:17 PM | #132 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
It is a first person, verbatim citation from the man's autobiograpy. Disputing that he said it, is insane.
Quote:
Maybe if we heard it on a sitcom, it would impress you more:-)
Quote:
Or are you going to continue to call Herskowitz a liar? Connally waited until he was quite literally, on his deathbed, to come forward about this. Had he testified about it during the WC or HSCA hearings, this proof that the FBI fabricated evidence, would have turned the country on its head. He expressed his thoughts about the assassination to his friend Doug Thompson, the publisher and founder of Capital Hill Blue. From the article at http://www.rense.com/general70/connol.htm I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy? "Absolutely not," Connolly said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." So why not speak out? "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe." Connally has often said that the country needed closure on the JFK case. I think he was horrendously wrong about that, but at least, he eventually told the truth.
Quote:
This man was there. He gave us his first hand report on his discussion with that nurse, which corroborated Connally, flawlessly and beyond any doubt.
Quote:
I can't wait to hear how you plan to attack Nolan:-)
Quote:
Do you REALLY think all three of those men suffered identical delusions about where that bullet came from? Or were you thinking that they all lied, because they hadn't been sworn in with their hands on a bible? Hey! My crazy, conspiratorial theory is this - those men just told the truth. |
4th September 2015, 11:21 PM | #133 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
I have never in my life, claimed their were seven shots. How many more times do you intend to misrepresent me?
The simple fact is, that we have no way of knowing how many shots were fired, because some of them came from a suppressed weapon. The fact that only one of the early shots was audible, and neither was nearly as loud as the ones at the end, proves that beyond any doubt. |
4th September 2015, 11:38 PM | #134 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one. Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399. It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found. I saw nothing related to the missing initials or anything else about this topic in the links you presented. Just make your argument right here. I'll be quite interested in how you explain the absence of the initials of the two men who marked the stretcher bullet, before it went to the FBI in Washington. This is from my article: As we will see, the FBI found a better solution to their problem making lemonade out of this nasty lemon. Instead of threatening a key witness, they seem to have simply decided to replace the inconvenient bullet with one that did indeed come from Oswald's rifle. And as is often the case, one lie requires a multitude of other lies to support it. Wright gave the bullet to Secret Service agent, Richard Johnsen, who in turn, passed it on to his supervisor, James Rowley. Not surprisingly, both of those men also refused to corroborate CE399, a fact which even the FBI had to admit, stating in Commission exhibit 2011, that the two agents "could not identify" it. It is interesting that the FBI never reported the reason why the two agents refused to corroborate this dubious piece of evidence. Like FBI agents, Secret Service agents were required to initial forensic evidence, and it is hard to imagine them being negligent in such an important case. Further corroboration that at least Johnsen marked the bullet, came from ex-Secret Service agent, Gerald Blaine, who is a close friend of SA Clint Hill. In an email to David Von Pein, he stated that Hill had spoken with agent Johnsen, who told him that he did indeed, mark the bullet. This is from that email. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. Von Pein, an avid Warren Commissioner defender, replied to Blaine, warning him that this disclosure would prove that CE399 was not the actual bullet that Tomlinson found, and Blaine promptly amended his statement, claiming that Johnsen must have meant that he initialed the envelope the bullet was in, rather than the bullet itself. As it turned out however, researcher John Hunt had photographed that envelope and Johnsen's signature was not on it. In his final fallback position, Von Pein made the rather dubious claim that what Johnsen really meant when he said he marked the bullet, was that he had typed up a memo that had been attached to the envelope. Obviously, the explanation for Johnsen and Rowley's rejection of CE399 is that not only did the stretcher bullet look much different than the original, but their initials were nowhere to be found on it. And they were not the only ones whose initials were missing. The next step in the chain of possession took place when Rowley passed the bullet to FBI agent, Elmer Todd. Todd was adamant that he initialed the stretcher bullet, as he was required to do. But when researcher, John Hunt examined extreme closeup photos of CE-399, he was able to identify initials that were written in later, but could find no trace of Todd's. This is from his article on the subject: There is no question but that only three sets of initials appear on CE-399. There is likewise no question that they have all been positively identified: RF was Robert Frazier, CK was Charles Killion, and JH was Cortland Cunningham. (See Figure 5.) It can be stated as a fact that SA Elmer Lee Todd's mark is not on the historical CE-399 bullet. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png |
4th September 2015, 11:52 PM | #135 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
This is a dead issue.
I cited articles which proved that suppressors have been available in this country since 1909. They were used in WW1 and in WW2, by snipers on both sides. And you have admitted that "stable" suppressor installations were available in '63 on at least two different calibers. So there is no doubt that it was possible for suppressors to be used in the attack on President Kennedy. The next step is for you to answer the questions I have been repeatedly asking you. Why was it that most witnesses only heard one of the early shots? Why did John Connally hear one shot, but not the next one that hit him? Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313? Why do we see numerous, happy smiling faces in the Altgens photo, snapped at frame 255, if two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots have already been fired? Why was there no screaming, diving to the ground, or Secret Service agents in action, until AFTER frame 285?? |
5th September 2015, 12:58 AM | #136 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
For three bullets having been fired.
I have not claimed that we have absolute proof. Those shell casings, who were fired by the pin the same rifle as at least one of the recovered bullets. You can of course perform whatever mental gymnastic you wish to explain this away, when and how the shell casings and bullets were produced, but the explanation that best fits the evidence is that Oswalds rifle fired three shots and ejected three shells. In the same calibre as the bullets that left tangible remains and wounds. And what form of evidence would be required to show you that I am not convinced by your arguments exactly? Especially as you seem to conflate evidence with proof? At this point it has been explained many times over, by myself and others, why you have not convinced us. Why do I need to explain anecdotal evidence at all? "Of the three shots Oswald fires, his last two were marginally closer together." Or "Echoes." I don't have to. The only person claiming to know those people are startled, have heard the same noise, and the noise was a gunshot, is you. I don't even see anything that needs explaining. But yes, I find somebody shouting "Duck!" plausible. Given the confusion of the moment I find traffic noise, crowd noise, sirens, shouting, echoes or confusion entirely plausible. I find those more plausible given that you have yet to offer any physical evidence for more than three bullets that day. No bullet hole. No shell casing. No bullet. Hmmm. People don't react the way you expect when there is a gunshot? Perhaps the problem is with your expectations. Perhaps, then, we should not assume people are reacting to a mystery gunshot based on your opinion. Just saying... Because only three shots were fired that day. Because the Plaza is an echo chamber. Because people were scared, and confused. Because the human memory, despite your insistence is not frame perfect, and should not be expected to match filmed footage exactly. If you mean the silent shots, that left no bullets, holes, or physical traces, it certainly is ludicrous. I can't prove it. No. I can however continue to point out it is the explanation that best fits the totality of evidence. I assume, that if you are holding evidence to this standard however, you are about to point us towards the silenced rifle, that you can prove was fired that day, along with the bullets and the evidence of their impact? If not Oswalds rifle, with shell casings it fired, and at least one of the bullets recovered having been fired by that rifle, suggests an obvious solution. If we weigh the evidence, the balance tilts against the theory that is based entirely upon what you think people look like they are reacting to in a film. A lighting gantry is the array, including the streetlights themselves, above the street. Based on available evidence for the 'missing' bullets final destination, the gantry is the most likely point of impact. There are other plausible explanations. An oak tree, The street. It is a little mystery that will likely remain because we do not expect absolute proof from imperfect evidence. And of his body of work, I have found one argument convincing as a likely explanation based upon it's own merits and evidence. It is true after one. It is true that there were three spent cartridges. This is evidence of three shots. If you wish to argue they are evidence of shots fired elsewhere, or elsewhen, then feel free. But they remain evidence. Would you care to explain how items recorded in evidence at the time are voided as evidence? You stated I asked for evidence because I knew you could not supply it. You stated that within the question. And for the record, I am continuing to ask for good evidence. Before you ask if people in the film footage are reacting to more than three gunshots, you need to supply evidence for those shots. You have yet to do so. No I am asking for any form of physical evidence. That is asking for any of a multitude of forms. I am asking for those, because they will be the best way to establish if there were bullets fired. Other forms can be consistent with bullets fired with out being conclusive. And despite arguing this was your claim above, you repeat the claim. I ask for ANY kind of physical evidence for any more than three shots fired. As it happens, physical evidence for there being bullets that were fired, and hit something would be the very best way to resolve important issues. To claim otherwise is bewildering. I am addressing those arguments. I am stating that there is no physical evidence to support the claims, and asking if you can provide some. If you can not, then your claims of any more than three shots, fired from any rifle other than Oswalds, remains unconvincing. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
5th September 2015, 01:57 AM | #137 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
5th September 2015, 01:59 AM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
5th September 2015, 02:02 AM | #139 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
We could identify how many shots he is claiming were fired that day, if he provided any form of physical evidence for them.
As he often states we should be asking for good, emperical evidence, then surely physical evidence of shell casings, a rifle, bullets, impact effects, wounds, etc, would qualify. They would be tangible, measurable, and validate the paths of enquiry his 'evidence' thus far has only been able to suggest. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
5th September 2015, 02:11 AM | #140 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
As admirable as your post is, burden of proof has been reversed.
Mr Harris is the one speculating that a silenced weapon was used. It is up to him to support his claim, and to verify his facts. If he wishes to claim a silenced weapon was available, then he will be able to produce an example of such a weapon and show it was capable of the shots he is describing. That will show this is a possibility. If he wants us to consider this as a probable solution to the event, then he will be able to provide physical evidence of bullets fired by such a rifle. He will show evidence of there being such a rifle, in a location, firing bullets at JFK. Then we can consider if those bullets best explain events in witness testimony or filmed footage. But of course, telling him how to convince us has yet to be appreciated. He would seem to enjoy telling me what evidence I should rather be convinced by instead. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
5th September 2015, 03:39 AM | #141 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Tomlinson told the WC that it was NOT the bullet from Connally's stretcher. Parkland treated over a thousand gunshot victims every year. That bullet was obviously, from someone else's stretcher. It might even have been from Kennedy's.
Do you really think that calling this a "magic bullet" is a substitute for dealing with the fact that it was marked by agents whose initials are nowhere to be found on CE399? Or that every man to examine the stretcher bullet, including two Secret Service agents, refused to confirm that it was CE399?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The bullet that was unanimously rejected by everyone who examined the original before it went to the FBI? The bullet which does not bear the initials of any of the men who marked the original at Parkland? The bullet that could not possibly have been the one that fell from Connally's gurney and was delivered to the DPD by officer Nolan? Why are you pretending that the problem is my imagination, when you know very well, that the facts and evidence prove you wrong - AGAIN?
Quote:
Why are the initials of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, missing from CE399? Why did the FBI phone Tomlinson, shortly after receiving fragments that were large enough to compare with the bullet he found, and tell him to "keep his mouth shut" about finding it? How did the governor of Texas, the Dallas district attorney and a police officer, all suffer from exactly the same delusion, regarding a whole bullet coming from Connally's "gurney"? Why did every man to examine the Tomlinson bullet, refuse to confirm that it was CE399? Why did nursing supervisor Bell, flatly deny the FBI's claim that she said she gave her envelope to Nolan? This is what's important Hank. Let's talk about it.
Quote:
What do you hope to achieve by making all these ugly accusations?
Quote:
Let's deal with it seriously.
Quote:
Quote:
All bullets or fragments at Parkland, wound up in evidence envelopes, before going to the DPD. Bell placed four tiny fragments - almost particles from Connally's wrist, in an envelope and gave it to two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office. The nurse who recovered the bullet from Connally's thigh, also placed it in an envelope before giving it to Nolan. I never said or remotely implied that anything Bell did, corroborated Nolan. If you didn't understand that part of the article, why didn't you just pm me and ask for clarification?
Quote:
Quote:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellartic...lfbireport.jpg Of course, Bell was adamant that she never gave her envelope to a uniformed officer, but to two plain clothed agents. The other problem was, their reference to a single "fragment". Bell actually placed four tiny fragments into her envelope. They had to do that, because Nolan's envelope only contained one object, so they needed to make the Bell envelope match. |
5th September 2015, 01:06 PM | #142 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Why? A bullet was found after it fell off a gurney by Tomlinson. Why couldn't all the above people have read about it in the Warren Report or the conspiracy literature, and incorporated themselves into the story? You've got "stories" and "recollections" from decades after the fact. You have no contemporaneous evidence.
What evidence do you have that the bullet ever existed? It is incorrect to say that's "The bullet that Connally described", as the only account of this bullet appears in a ghost-written book by another gentleman entirely. Connally had multiple opportunities to mention this bullet. Where did he mention it? To the Warren Commission? No. To the HSCA? No. To Life Magazine? No. To the Media from his hospital bed shortly after the assassination? No. He mentioned it nowhere. Still waiting for you to explain this lack of corroboration for the account you cite. I've asked before. You just keep on ignoring the point. Hello? Since none of those four marked it, all they could do was examine it and say either "That looks like the bullet" or "that doesn't look like the bullet". There is no way to confirm - short of a permanent mark - that a particular bullet is the one they handled. Of course they didn't confirm it. I would expect nothing less. Your complaint above isn't germane in any fashion to the authenticity of the bullet. Do try again. That was already refuted before you got here. READ THE THREAD. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 01:35 PM | #143 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
[quote=Robert Harris;10847013]Yes, shots were fired at least, "thrice". Hank's "two shot" theory is easily refuted.[quote]
'Tis a pity, then, that to date you haven't found the time to do so. All you've done concerning the arguments I've posted here is attack a bunch of strawman versions of the arguments I've advanced. I pointed that out before. You have yet to even try to refute the claims I actually made. For example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=40 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=53 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=68 The "suppressed gunshots" is just one of the begged questions you've put forth here on this forum. No, you presume we can, then cherry-pick the results you like, and ignore or explain away the rest. And based on Nellie's confusion (and some other testimony), you conjecture a convoluted shooting scenario, with maybe an early shot before Z133, another one at Z150-160, another at Z223, another at Z285, another at Z313, and another two (or more, you never did state exactly how many) after Z313. So perhaps, seven OR MORE shots, of which Nellie said she heard three. She was one confused witness by your own scenario. And you don't get to salvage the points you like by conjecturing four or more shooters, some with silenced weapons, popping up, missing everything, and vanishing without a trace. And then further postulating swapped evidence to explain away the FACT that all six pieces of hard ballistic evidence that were recovered (three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet) were determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That's called enlarging the conspiracy to fill in or explain away the inconvenient facts. Gee, I thought snipers were taught to shoot for the center of mass, the largest portion of the target, the trunk. You can cite the instructions to the snipers somewhere? Or are you simply conjecturing what you cannot prove -- what the "preferred" target was, to assume a miss to the greatest degree? [quote=Robert Harris;10847013]The shots at the end, were obviously, not suppressed and were infinitely louder.[quote] Infinitely louder than zero, yes, if there were no suppressed shots. They would not have "infinitely" louder than a suppressed shot, however. They would have been some magnitude louder, not "infinitely" louder. According to your theory, you mean. You state all the above as if it's proven fact. It's not. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 02:04 PM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
No, both what Jackie was doing when he heard the shot, and what he was doing when he heard the shot, are his observations and recollections of the assassination.
You wish to keep his observation about Jackie, but throw out his observation about himself. That's called cherry-picking. You even admit he got some things wrong: But you attempt to retain the recollections you like: Straw man argument. I only pointed out that you put a shot at Z223. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 02:31 PM | #145 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Exactly how many "star" witnesses am I allowed, anyway? Which other "star witnesses" do I have besides Connally and Clint Hill? Can you provide a formal list of the ones I've used to date?
And why is it when I quote the Governor, or Secret Service agent Clint Hill, they become my "star witness", but when you quote them, they are not your "star witnesses"? I sense the appellation "star-witness" is used by you in a pejorative fashion, as with a sneer or derogatory manner. If all you've got is name-calling, you haven't much. You haven't much. In the first quote above, all you do is dismiss the points I made as implausible, but don't explain why you see them as implausible. A week or so later, you were claiming: It wasn't refuted, it was simply dismissed as "implausible". And despite my citing the testimony of four men who were the closest to Kennedy at the time of the shooting (Hill, Connally, Kellerman, and Greer), you claim the argument I advanced is an example of "Illogical theories with zero evidential support". You never did show what was implausible or illogical, and why the testimony of the men I cited doesn't rise to the level of "evidential support", but when you cite the same men, it does. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 02:42 PM | #146 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
That's not precisely true, and another example of you cherry-picking.
Other witnesses - like Greer - said they thought the first noise was a firecracker or a backfire, yet you've cited their testimony as evidence of an early shot. You treat Greer differently above to make a different point. Cherry-picking. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 04:13 PM | #147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Pardon, Bob.
Plant: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plant a : conceal b : to covertly place for discovery, publication, or dissemination You are alleging a different bullet was discovered, and CE399 was "covertly place for discovery" (planted) in the evidence chain in lieu of the original bullet. Are you not? You prefer to use the word "swapped" apparently, but "planted" works perfectly as well. As noted, discussed in detail just before you got here. Refer to the prior thread. We are under no obligation to restart the debate from the start just because you arrived late for the discussion. A very serious charge entirely lacking in any evidential support. Typical approach by a conspiracy advocate. When stuck, simply allege the evidence contrary to your view has been falsified in some manner. Curiously, Tomlinson mentioned nothing of the sort to any other conspiracy authors to my knowledge, nor to the Warren Commission in his testimony. For example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS by Josiah Thompson, published in 1967, mentions this supposed call not at all. Curiously, neither does his Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm Did he mention this supposed call to anyone besides Marcus? Yes, that's what I said... that you argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. Thank you for arguing the point again immediately above, thereby proving what I said was accurate. First off, I was clearly talking about the second rifle you've argued was found in the TSBD. You're responding about the bullets. A clear LOGICAL FALLACY, the one known as changing the subject (RED HERRING). That's where you talk about something you're comfortable with, rather than attempting to answer the points you can't. Secondly, it's your accusation about the bullets, devoid of any evidence. I suggest you post the evidence to support your accusations, rather than trying to shift the burden of proof (another LOGICAL FALLACY) and tell us the FBI needs to disprove your contentions. Thirdly, beyond that, you haven't proven that "Tomlinson's bullet" and "the one that wounded Connally" are not one and the same. Please summarize here where you explain what happened to the supposed second rifle, which was what I was talking about, as can be clearly seen here: Still talking about the supposed second rifle, Bob. See the above quote, with the bold-faced portions. Pretend some more you're being responsive. We can see you're avoiding my points entirely. Where did you provide the evidence for who was responsible for bringing this second rifle into the building? You never did. I am not misrepresenting you. You are misrepresenting my points entirely. 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 |
|
5th September 2015, 10:27 PM | #148 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
WOW! This is the mother of all misrepresentations. You know very well, that I never claimed that no one heard a shot between the first and third. I have said countless times that they heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.
Like John Connally, they only heard one of the early shots. Therefore, I was absolutely correct in stating "Neither did anyone else.". John Connally didn't hear that 223 shot. Nor did his wife, or Mrs. Kennedy, or Roy Kellerman or Bill Greer, or "most" of the other witnesses, as was confirmed by the WC.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you really going to resurrect this silly theory?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you really trying to make a case that Connally's memory under those conditions, was better than everyone else's?
Quote:
And "Cherry picking" is when you deny a witness's statement which are corroborated by the other witnesses as well as the Zapruder film, and accept the ones that contradict them. |
6th September 2015, 08:47 AM | #149 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Well, let's think about this, Robert.
You've got two whole bullets and some fragments possibly from a third. Where did all those bullets come from? You are of the persuasion, I believe, that the bullet described in the hearsay ghost-written Mickey Hershowitz book is a legitimate bullet that actually wounded Connally. Where do the supposed fragments reported by nurse Audrey Bell fit in? Were those fragments originally part of the bullet you think disappeared? And where does the nearly whole bullet found on a different floor by Darrell Tomlinson fit in? That item is not related to the wounding of the President or Governor, is it? If not, where did it come from and why is being found near the Governor's stretcher? I'd really like you to relate your theory here. And provide the evidence -- not the suggestions of malfeasance based on thin air -- we've heard those already. The evidence. 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 |
|
6th September 2015, 09:36 PM | #150 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Hank, you have never responded to this post. Let's put this "one early shot" theory to bed, so that we can move on to discussing why only one of them was heard by John Connally, and countless other witnesses.
You have also, never addressed the fact that there were no reactions following any of the early shots which were similar to the ones following 285 and 313. To the limo passengers, the earliest shots should have been louder than the final ones, because the limo was closer to the alleged sniper's nest. How is it that there were no visible startle reactions to gunshots which would have been 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions are supposed to be provoked?? No one was startled by the early shots, Hank. Most witnesses didn't even realize that the one they did hear, was a gunshot. And the other one was inaudible to almost everyone. Those shots didn't all come from the same weapon. That fact is ridiculously obvious. |
8th September 2015, 01:00 AM | #151 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Another simple question:
Bill Greer testified that he heard nothing he recognized as a gunshot, prior to the end of the attack. I wouldn't have said it if it weren't "precisely true". This is how he described the first "noise" that he heard: Mr. GREER. Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. He very obviously, did not recognize the first "noise" as a gunshot - exactly as I stated.
Quote:
Are you now suggesting that these witnesses really did hear a motorcycle backfire circa 150-160?? That doesn't work, Hank. Even if you were right, you still have the problem of the witnesses only hearing ONE of the early shots, or if you insist, the noise that sounded like a shot. Why didn't they hear the actual shot at 223? Why don't we see people ducking and spinning around and shielding their ears, etc. following 223, like we see following 285 and 313? And how is it that Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio failed to identify Zapruder's reaction to a shot at that frame? One thing we seem to agree on (I think) is that there was a shot at 223. But that shot wasn't loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions by anyone then, including Zapruder. It wasn't even loud enough to be heard by most witnesses. Oswald's rifle generated levels 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. Like all high powered rifles, it was loud as hell. Why didn't anyone hear it, Hank? |
8th September 2015, 02:12 AM | #152 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher. It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding. The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found. Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html I already answered your question. The Tomlinson bullet might have been from JFK's stretcher, or it might have been from a wound victim who had nothing to do with the assassination. Parkland treated more than a thousand such victims every year. The Connally bullet, obviously came from one of the assassins and was fired at 223.
Quote:
The clincher here, is that he was fully corroborated by Wade and Nolan, who talked to the nurse who was holding that bullet in her hand and very specific that it came from Connally's gurney. Bill Stinson, who told the nurse to "give it to him", pointing at Nolan, also corroborated the fact that he was told that a whole bullet was recovered, although he misunderstood, thinking it was recovered in surgery. There is only one way he could have come to that conclusion - that same nurse, told him. Consider the fact that all three of those men were told about a whole bullet, which is what Connally also stated. How is it possible that nursing supervisor Bell place four tiny wrist fragments into an envelope and then told the Dallas district attorney and a police officer that it was a whole bullet???
Quote:
Those were fragments from Connally's wrist.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You would know this if you had read the article. Did you even read Tomlinson's testimony? They eventually, got him to change his story, but what could he do, after they told him that the bullet matched ammunition from Oswald's rifle?? Now that I've answered your questions, why don't you answer a few of mine? Why are none of the initials of the men who marked the Tomlinson bullet before it went to the FBI labs, present on CE399? Why is it that every one of the four men who handled that bullet prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm that it was CE399? Why did the FBI awaken Tomlinson in the wee morning hours, shortly after receiving fragments that were large enough to match up with his bullet, and tell him to keep his mouth shut about finding that bullet? Why did the FBI lie, claiming that agent Odum had gotten a partial confirmation from Tomlinson and Wright, when in fact, Odum himself flatly denied ever ever getting such a confirmation, or even seeing CE399? |
8th September 2015, 03:14 AM | #153 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
I am sorry but this post is laughable.
Why would shots being supressed stop us being able to count them? Physical impact on the world is not dependent on being heard. Surely you could show us how many holes they formed? How many bullets were recovered? If not, perhaps you could explain why there is no physical evidence to tell us how many of these bullets were fired? |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
8th September 2015, 05:55 AM | #154 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Hank, you don't have to call all these Parkland witnesses liars or delusional anymore. Let me help you out with a better argument. Look at CE-842, a WC photo of the envelope and wrist fragments that Audrey Bell, according to the FBI, filled out and gave to officer Nolan.
Now look toward the right-bottom of the envelope. Do you see the upside-down "BMN"? BMN are Bobby Nolan's initials. In fact, I sent him a printout of this exhibit and he said that the letters looked like his writing. http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg Unfortunately, there are a few problems. Keep in mind that Bell was processing the most important evidence she had ever seen in her life. Do you suppose she would have used a fresh, clean envelope or one that was laying in a waste basket and required her to erase a lot of old data? Let's take a closer look. http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png I have encircled some of the partially erased, broken character fragments, obviously, from previous data, as well as a multitude of other partially erased characters. Look at all the partial characters that were overwritten by both Nolan's and Fritz's initials. Also notice the absence of Bell's initials, in spite of her claim that she wrote them, as she was required to do in literally hundreds of other criminal cases. To fail to do that, would have broken the chain of custody and could have cost her her job. And Bell was no rookie. She was the nursing supervisor of the entire ER of the largest hospital in Dallas. She got her RN in 1946. Last question. Look at the four tiny fragments in the plastic container. Bell said she processed them herself and placed them in the envelope. Do you REALLY think that just minutes later, she forgot what was in the envelope and told the Dallas DA, one police officer and undoubtedly, Bill Stinson, that it held a single, whole bullet? Oh, almost forgot. Yes, I think Nolan's initials were forged - a trivial task, dealing with three capital letters. With a little practice you or I could have done it as well as they did. |
8th September 2015, 09:29 AM | #155 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
8th September 2015, 09:51 AM | #156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
So to sum up:
An unknown number of additional shooters, fired an unknown number of shots, for which we have no physical evidence. They left no trace of evidence. We base this deduction on Mr Harris believing that the witnesses all had powers of recall, that are perfect enough to him apply to the Z Film, and discern that several people were 'startled' by a gunshot (and ONLY a gunshot, to the exclusion of all other noises). We base it on his opinion of the illegible markings on an envelope. His opinion of the appearance of a bullet. And his ability to understand when decades old memoirs, not sworn testimony, is more accurate than testimony given at the time (despite memories growing less accurate with time...) And yet we remain unconvinced. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
8th September 2015, 12:22 PM | #157 | ||
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
You are imagining things. You mistake shadows from irregularities in the paper for letters (under the last half of the word "NURSES," you see two little "F"s, I take it <snip>). You arbitrarily decide where Nolan's initials end and supposedly extraneous "character fragments" begin (it seems to me Nolan's "M" and "M" merely extend below the circle drawn, after slight breaks, parallel to each other, indicating that the pen skipped at that point on the paper).
Much ado about nothing.
|
||
8th September 2015, 04:43 PM | #158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Of course I never did. He won't be able to quote me using either term.
This is just one more strawman argument from Robert. He avoids my actual arguments like they were contagious. He takes a point of mine, asks a question instead of responding to the point("Are you suggesting Mickey Herskowitz was lying?"... "Are the witnesses delusional?") and then, in subsequent posts, "forgets" that was never my argument. For example: [quote=Robert Harris;10856890]Or are you going to continue to call Herskowitz a liar?[quote] I don't blame him. If I had as little evidence as Robert did, I might resort to logical fallacies too. It's the drowning man syndrome -- latching onto whatever is handy. In Robert's case, it's mostly hearsay and logical fallacies. 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 |
|
8th September 2015, 06:22 PM | #159 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
You have, in various posts, suggested just that -- seven separate shots.
I count your suggestions of all these: 1. A shot prior to Z133 2. A shot at Z150-160 3. A shot at Z223 4. A shot at Z285 5. A shot at Z313 6&7. A minimum of two more shots after Z313. 133 was suggested here: The next four were suggested here (and a multitude of other places): And you suggested at least another two after Z313 here: When I add those up, I get seven different shots that you have suggested. Answer the questions I asked, Bob. What's the upper limit here -- 10, 15, 20? And can you specify the shooting locations and the evidence for those locations? You've argued that, but not established that. "One of the early shots" is begging the question... that's right, another LOGICAL FALLACY. "and neither was..." is still just begging the question... that's right, another LOGICAL FALLACY. You deal a lot in logical fallacies and hearsay. You also avoid my points a lot. 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 |
|
8th September 2015, 07:55 PM | #160 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 623
|
Robert's theory is, in some ways, remarkably similar to Lifton's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory that JFK's body was altered before the official autopsy. Both Harris and Lifton assume that in any conflict between the physical evidence and witness statements (at least for some witnesses), that the witness statements are confirmed, unalterable fact, and the physical evidence must be wrong or faked. Even in cases of hearsay witnesses decades after the fact. It's pretty much the perfect example of confirmation bias.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|