ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 7th October 2015, 09:39 AM   #361
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That is correct and the claims by Connally, Wade and officer Nolan are virtually identical. Nolan corroborated Wade literally, word for word.

Your denial has nothing to do with the facts and evidence. It is entirely based on you not liking what they said

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 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.


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.
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.
BT George is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2015, 02:40 PM   #362
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Hank never tried to prove any such thing. Hank knows there were three shots fired. By Oswald.
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.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2015, 03:23 PM   #363
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This isn't rocket science, the below paper is from '66

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/634649.pdf

The sound of the supersonic rifle
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
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2015, 06:48 PM   #364
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
How certain are you that...
The only people who get to be certain of the events in Dallas are JFK and Oswald. JFK is certain because he's dead from two bullets. Oswald is certain because he did the shooting.

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:
...that "most" of the witnesses that day were not correct in stating that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack?
Probably did. The plaza has an nasty echo, and Oswald could recycle his rife and reacquire his target in 2 seconds.

Quote:
... that most of the witnesses that day were not correct about only one of the early shots being audible to them?
What someone hears and what they remember hearing are two very different things. Like when people walk in front of a train because they were lost in thought. Seeing the President of the United States in person in your home town is a big deal.

Quote:
...that scientists were not correct that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285, which caused Zapruder to react in the same 1/6th of one second that the limo passengers did?
You throw the title "scientist" around like it's an unassailable source that can never be questioned or doubted. An opinion is all this is. It's also irrelevant.

Quote:
... that bystanders were startled by 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots, fired prior frame 255?
Who cares? Everyone knows there was a high powered rifle in Dealey Plaza. Everyone knows it was on the 6th Floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Everyone knows it was Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon, and most people know he fired it.

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.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th October 2015, 09:14 AM   #365
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You have shown us several examples, none of which were conclusive because there were conflicting data points such as other people in the frames not exhibiting a reaction.
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:
Have you, Robert Harris, ever submitted to an independent test of your own ability to determine -- from video alone (no audio) -- whether a person depicted in the video is reacting to a loud noise? If so, what was your score? If not, how can you assure us that your purported ability is genuine?
I will try to answer your question without the ridicule it so richly deserves:-)

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.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 02:27 PM   #366
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,783
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I will try to answer your question without the ridicule it so richly deserves:-)
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:
I'm pretty sure that the test you suggest is nonexistent, which might explain why I have never taken it.
A simple "no" would have sufficed.

Quote:
But expertise is only necessary when we are dealing with an uncertain issue.
How is your untested ability to attribute to gunfire what you see in a silent film not an uncertain issue?

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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 02:51 PM   #367
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
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.
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:
At the end of the day Bob has the same thing supporting his scenario:

1) ZERO hard evidence.
Wrong again. Of course, the actual stretcher bullet and the one recovered on the second floor, went into the black hole called the FBI. But CE399 itself, provides us with conclusive hard evidence, that the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet are nowhere to be found on it.

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:
2) Recollections and claims ranging from 12-40 years after the assassination.
That's a pointless argument. But if you want earlier data, then you could look at the evidence you just deleted. On 11/23/63, the FBI lied about their interview with Audrey Bell, claiming that she passed a single fragment to officer Nolan.

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.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 03:04 PM   #368
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. You're begging the question and asking me to do the same thing.
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
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 03:09 PM   #369
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 03:48 PM   #370
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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,
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2015, 10:06 PM   #371
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.


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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 12:31 AM   #372
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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
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.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 05:54 AM   #373
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,918
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
Tough questions such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Do you understand the problem with a begged question? If not, why not?

Quote:
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
Why do you continue to post dozens of excuses for why you haven't stopped beating your wife?

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.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 10:14 AM   #374
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,783
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Nonsense. If you think my questions contain unproven assumptions then address them, and explain your complaint.
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:
All you are doing is fabricating excuses for why you have to evade the tough questions.
No, I'm pointing out how your questions are just part of the same rhetorical game you've played over and over, employing the same logical fallacies. You don't get to dismiss the obvious logical flaws in your reasoning as excuse and evasion on someone else's part. Your questions aren't "tough." They're simply circular, and filled with amateurish debate tricks.

Quote:
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.
No, you asked those questions to spin your circular argument one more time in hopes of ensnaring the reader in it. When people correctly identify the circularity in your reasoning and point it out to you, it's not an evasion. (And I'll be the authority on what I agree with.)

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:
Address the issues directly and honestly.
I have. Several times, in fact. The problem is that your claim isn't made directly and honestly. It's couched in straw men, begged and loaded questions, and circular reasoning. You want the discussion to take place solely within the convoluted rhetorical framework you've constructed around the two key points. This is what I have identified previously as your "game."

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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 02:52 PM   #375
Bubba
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,225
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:

Mr. SPECTER - All right; proceed to tell us what you saw and heard at about that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window.
He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle,
you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.
We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time.
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 09:24 PM   #376
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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?

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

How is your untested ability to attribute to gunfire what you see in a silent film not an uncertain issue?

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.
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.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 09:30 PM   #377
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
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.
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.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2015, 10:18 PM   #378
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
The spasmodic contraction of neck muscles,
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:
pulling the head down toward the shoulders
You actually, almost go something right. But in fact, it is the raising of the shoulders which is symptomatic of a startle responses. I cite Landis & Hunt on that, in this brief segment which shows Roy Kellerman doing exactly that:

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif


Quote:
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.
Why don't you post a citation, to prove that?

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?
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2015, 02:09 PM   #379
vtbub
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
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2015, 02:54 PM   #380
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2015, 10:21 AM   #381
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
You simply have not followed Hank's argument very well.
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2015, 10:52 AM   #382
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,783
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...insane levels of bias.
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:
If you really want to claim that no one was reacting then, then address the questions that you have been evading.
Addressed above. Your questions are ill-formed -- either begged or loaded. Repeating them ad nauseam does not suddenly transform them into a cogent argument nor oblige them to ongoing attention.

Quote:
It is the facts that you refuse to discuss, that prove my case.
No. Your critics' unwillingness to engage you on your tightly wound tautology does not prove it to be true. See my comments several posts above regarding circular reasoning. You have been given the reasons. In my case, it is because I have already made up my mind regarding the validity of your claims after hearing three unchanged presentations of it. In some others' cases it is because they consider you beyond the reach of reason. Neither of those reasons rationally leads to a conclusion that your claims must be true.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2015, 11:23 AM   #383
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
The spasmodic contraction of neck muscles,
Why do you keep using the term, "spasmodic"?
This made me laugh.
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
Are you still claiming as you did in mcadam's forum that because we see no "spasms" at 285, they weren't startled?
That was merely your uncomprehending spin on what I actually said.
I said that startle reactions can be too subtle to see in a low-res film.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
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.
Which obviously means that you can't assert that no one had startle reactions to a loud noise at a certain point just because you don't see them in this film.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
pulling the head down toward the shoulders
You actually, almost go something right. But in fact, it is the raising of the shoulders which is symptomatic of a startle responses. I cite Landis & Hunt on that, in this brief segment which shows Roy Kellerman doing exactly that:

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Quote:
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.
Why don't you post a citation, to prove that?
I asked you first, didn't I? Ha ha.

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
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?
Yes, but so what?
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
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?
Yes, if we had any reason to think there was a shot then. This isn't one, as there could be any number of reasons why he turned.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
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?
Alvarez can't "confirm" that Zapruder "reacted," that was merely the esteemed scientist's guess. Maybe Zapruder lost his balance momentarily or was jostled.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris
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?
Everyone had become aware that they were under fire. You are reading what you want to see into their actions.
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2015, 11:32 AM   #384
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by vtbub View Post
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
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2015, 11:39 AM   #385
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2015, 01:50 PM   #386
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
So, to summarize, the startle response is an automatic contraction of certain neck muscles that thrusts the head forward.
I meant to say that the startle reflex involves an automatic contraction of certain neck muscles that thrusts the head forward.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2015, 11:55 AM   #387
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
This made me laugh.
I've never heard you laugh before when you were proven wrong. Why are you starting now?

Quote:
Why have you typically elided it from the Britannica quote?
I wish there was a nicer way to put this Sandy, but that's a lie. My most recent reference to that quote, from post #336,

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:
I use it because it is an accurate description of a reflex.
But it is irrelevant, because these "spasms" are not visible in either the Zapruder film, or any other video which I am aware of. Your attempt to use that as a way to argue that the limo passengers were not startled, is ludicrous.

Quote:
That was merely your uncomprehending spin on what I actually said.
I said that startle reactions can be too subtle to see in a low-res film.
Your argument is just nonsensical. No sane person would claim that this guy, and people around him, was not exhibiting a clear startle reaction

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
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2015, 11:59 AM   #388
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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?
Well, something like that. Of course, there may be other explanations for the extreme bias. Any thoughts on that?
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2015, 12:06 PM   #389
Robert Harris
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
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 09:19 AM   #390
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 09:45 AM   #391
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
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?
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 10:09 AM   #392
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 04:02 PM   #393
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,196
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."
grmcdorman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 02:39 AM   #394
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
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
Our detailed analysis of Oswald's pose, the lighting and shadows, and the rifle in his hands refutes the argument of photo tampering
More.

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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 12:49 PM   #395
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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
Nice strawman, no cigar.

What is it about conspiracy theory that leads folks to reject known physical and forensic evidence in favor of a fantasy construct based solely on their pov and misinformed interpretation of what evidence they cherry pick to believe?
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2015, 11:07 AM   #396
Allen773
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 797
For what it's worth...

Quote:
Can the conspiracy theories finally be put to rest? An incriminating photograph which showed Lee Harvey Oswald in his backyard, holding the same type of rifle used to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, has been confirmed as authentic after an examination using the latest forensic techniques.

Theories that the photo was a fake have been used to cast doubt on the evidence pointing to Oswald as the sole assassin of the President on November 22, 1963.

Oswald, killed before he could stand trial, claimed the photo, in which he brandished a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other, had been faked when shown it by Dallas Police. Its veracity was examined by The Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Now researchers at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, have used a new digital image forensics technique and a 3-D model of Oswald, for the study, published in the Journal of Digital Forensics.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6699751.html

Another nail in the coffin of those who claim Oswald was "just a patsy"...
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2015, 10:19 AM   #397
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Well, something like that. Of course, there may be other explanations for the extreme bias. Any thoughts on that?
In your case I have no idea, but asserting that muzzle blast is a function of projectile velocity rather than adiabatic expansion of the propellant gases as it exits the muzzle indicates to me that science isn't your long suit.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2015, 11:27 AM   #398
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
This made me laugh.
I've never heard you laugh before when you were proven wrong. Why are you starting now?

Quote:
Why have you typically elided it from the Britannica quote?
I wish there was a nicer way to put this Sandy, but that's a lie. My most recent reference to that quote, from post #336,

I already did. In McAdams' forum, I cited Britannica, stating that a symptom of startle reactions is "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.".
Ha HA.
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
Quote:
I use it because it is an accurate description of a reflex.
But it is irrelevant, because these "spasms" are not visible in either the Zapruder film, or any other video which I am aware of. Your attempt to use that as a way to argue that the limo passengers were not startled, is ludicrous.

Quote:
That was merely your uncomprehending spin on what I actually said.
I said that startle reactions can be too subtle to see in a low-res film.
Your argument is just nonsensical. No sane person would claim that this guy, and people around him, was not exhibiting a clear startle reaction

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
There is an automatic startle reflex, and then there are other things that people do, more deliberately, when they are startled. This distinction is evidently lost on you.

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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2015, 03:13 PM   #399
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,783
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Well, something like that. Of course, there may be other explanations for the extreme bias. Any thoughts on that?
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2015, 10:28 AM   #400
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

But it is irrelevant, because these "spasms" are not visible in either the Zapruder film, or any other video which I am aware of. Your attempt to use that as a way to argue that the limo passengers were not startled, is ludicrous.
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Your argument is just nonsensical. No sane person would claim that this guy, and people around him, was not exhibiting a clear startle reaction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A
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.
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.