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 8th September 2015, 09:09 PM   #161
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,867
Just filling out my scorecard here:
  • Silnced Weapon used even though the author cannot produce a rifle with the capabilites needed.
  • Nobody has ever, ever, ever, swept Dealey Plaza with a metal detector (assumed by the author's insistence that "Nobody knows how many shots were fired")
  • People being shot at random all behave the same, and have total recall of the event
  • Echoes don't matter.
  • The Warren Commission can't be trusted, but people who've never been to Dallas, or fired a rifle can.

As for Governor Connally's opinion on who shot him:

Who cares?

Connally was not on the 6th floor of the Depository, and had his back to where the shots came from. He is the least reliable witness in any conversation that does not focus on what happened inside the limo, and even then the fact he was shot makes him less reliable.

To restate the facts:

Oswald shot the President.
Oswald was the lone shooter, and in 52 years it has yet to be proven anyone else knew he was going to kill the President.
It was Oswald's rifle.

No silenced rifles were used in the assassination because:

They were unreliable beyond 50 yards in 1963.

No bullets or bullet fragments from a .22, 9mm, or .45 caliber were recovered. These being the only rounds available for suppressed weapons of any kind in 1963.

Contrary to the author's earlier statement, you just can't improvise a silencer. In the movies? Sure. In real life? No.

No professional marksman/hitman would have risked using a silenced rifle, not only because they would have been unreliable, but also very unnecessary. The great thing about a high powered rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter is that you only need one shot. Oswald only needed three. A professional would have known there would be mass confusion after the shooting, and escape would be easy (it was, Oswald walked right out the front door of the Depository).
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 September 2015, 09:38 PM   #162
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It is a first person, verbatim citation from the man's autobiograpy. Disputing that he said it, is insane.
On the very next page, Connally *supposedly* says "The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat."

But that, like the claim about the bullet, is entirely new to the book, and nowhere to be found in his testimony to a special committee of Congress nor a Presidential Commission, both of whom were investigating the assassination of the President.

To the WC: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
To the HSCA: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
OHMIGOD!! A book??

Maybe if we heard it on a sitcom, it would impress you more:-)
LOGICAL FALLACY known as a appeal to ridicule. That won't work, Robert.
A book, by its nature, is hearsay. It is not evidence of what Connally thought.
But let's go with your argument for a moment. Your argument is that Connally withheld pertinent information from two official investigations, and in fact, lied under oath to both the WC and the HSCA. That follows from your arguments about the book being Connally's own words. So why are you quoting a man who, according to your own arguments, is untrustworthy and lied under oath?





Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I would be glad to, but first, let's understand that his motive for coming forward is a secondary issue, since there is no doubt at all that he said exactly what he was quoted saying.

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.
Or Hershkwitz misunderstood something Connally said, or paraphrased him incorrectly, or added something to spice up sales ( As a co-author, Herskowitz gets a cut of the sales, does he not?)

Your listing only one possibility and ignoring all other possibilities, is, you guessed it, another LOGICAL FALLACY - a false dichotomy.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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 gave his first interview about the assassination just five days after the assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsIGlSFB7E4

How come there's no mention of all this pertinent stuff then? His mention of seeing a bullet would not have "turned the country on its head" at that point in time. But no mention whatsoever.

And of course, Dr. Shaw was one of Connally's doctors at Parkland. He never mentioned a bullet.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm

And Doctor Gregory also was one of the Parkland physicians who treated Connally. Nothing in his testimony about a bullet at Parkland.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm

And of course, nothing in Connally's testimony. But then, he lied to Congress and to the Warren Commission, is what your argument is. So why are you quoting him, exactly?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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."
Curiously, he says he won't speak out publicly, but there he *supposedly* is, speaking out publicly, to a *supposed* friend.

But none of the above is documented, verifiable, or established in any way. It's all hearsay. According to some person named Doug Thompson, who didn't publish this story until more than a decade after Connally's death - well after Connally was NOT around to deny or confirm the substance of the story.

And of course, Doug Thompson was a such a good friend, he didn't even know how to spell Connally's last name (he has it as "Connolly"). That hardly speaks to their closeness.

And of course, Thompson says the discussion in question happened in 1982, and he is relating it 24 years later. It's again, not evidence, but a recollection of a hearsay conversation. You've used the same arguments to try to support an argument for a second rifle in the Depository (relying on the 30-year after the fact recollection of a hearsay conversation recalled by Frank Ellsworth), and to support an argument for a found bullet (relying on a 49-year after the fact recollection of a hearsay conversation recalled by Officer Nolan). This is no different. You have no evidence, so you rely on whatever you can grab onto to support your beliefs, and ironically, throw out all the actual valid evidence (like the three shells, the nearly whole bullet, and the two large fragments).


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
But, according to you, lied to two different investigations into the assassination. According to you, he's not trustworthy. According to you, he did tell the truth in the Herskowitz book, but you don't tell us what special property you possess to be able to discern when a man is lying or telling the truth. And if lacking in that regard, you're simply cherry-picking the claims you like: the hearsay, undocumented, unverified, hearsay account from some person who makes a claim on the internet, and disregarding the man's own testimony.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
This was a freakin interview. Are you now claiming that the Dallas Morning News lied too???
Another strawman argument. Please rebut the points I make, not the ones you want to pretend I made. I said Wade's interview and the claims therein were made 30 years after the fact, and his testimony to the Warren Commission contained no reference to this found bullet. Is it your argument Wade was also untrustworthy, and lied in his testimony?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
Thirty years after the fact, he "revealed" something he never said before. Knowing how people inflate their own importance, and also knowing how recollection is faulty, I did suggest a different possibility. Which, of course, you have yet to respond to.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Sorry Hank. These verbatim, first person citations from indisputable sources are gold plated "evidence", by any standard.
The Thompson story, published more than a decade after Connally's death, is a 24-year after the fact recollection of hearsay.

The Nolan claim about what was in the envelope, is a 49-year after the fact recollection of hearsay.

The Wade claim about a bullet is a 30-year after the fact recollection, and the source you cite, a newspaper article, is hearsay.

The Connally claims from the book you cite is hearsay.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hank, I don't have time for this crap. The statements are rock solid, from indisputable sources and verbatim, and their consistency makes them 100% self corroborating.
The sources are, at best, decades after the fact recollections. They are neither indisputable (people have faulty memories, Robert), and they aren't verbatim, for the simple reason that they are decades after the fact and of necessity, are only recreations of the dialogue the person in question "remembers" (with the understanding that what they recall may not be what actually happened).



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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?
Any other options you care to list? Like the ones I actually gave? Or am I limited to choosing from your false dichotomy?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hey! My crazy, conspiratorial theory is this - those men just told the truth.
As they recalled it decades after the fact. Now you just have to prove they all had perfect recall and weren't affected by anything that is known to affect human recall.

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 8th September 2015, 09:45 PM   #163
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

...

I saw nothing related to the missing initials or anything else about this topic in the links you presented.
You didn't look very hard.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1364

As I noted, this was all covered in the past and you should read the prior threads rather than expecting everyone to repeat every argument verbatim just for your benefit.

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 9th September 2015, 04:08 AM   #164
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
I am sorry but this post is laughable.

Why would shots being supressed stop us being able to count them?
The only thing laughable around here is your claim that you can't figure out why silents shots would not have been counted:-)

Quote:
Physical impact on the world is not dependent on being heard.
I guess that depends on what part of the "world" was impacted. The shot at 160, hit no one. Nor did the one that caused Jame's Tague's minor wound and a lead smear on the Main St. curbing.

As I correctly stated, we have no way of knowing how many other shots might have been fired from suppressed weapons. I can't believe that anyone actually doesn't get 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 9th September 2015, 04:31 AM   #165
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
You are imagining things.
I will leave it to the more objective members of this forum to decide for themselves whether the broken character fragments and partially erased characters are just products of my imagination.

And why Bell would have selected a previously used envelope to contain the most important evidence she had ever dealt with.

And why would she have broken the chain of possession, by failing to initial that envelope as she was required to do, and claimed to have done in her ARRB

Also ask yourselves whether nursing supervisor Bell, who placed those four tiny wrist fragments into the envelope, actually told the Dallas DA and a police officer, that it contained a single, whole bullet. Good thing for her, wasn't it, that they didn't notice that she wrote on the envelope that it contained "fragments" from Connally's "arm" :-)

And why did she tell them that the bullet came from Connally's gurney, which is essentially the same thing that Connally said in his autobiography.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png

C'mon guys. Even the most hard core nutters have to be just a tad suspicious about all this.

Now, combine all of this with the fact that CE399 contains NONE of the initials of the men who marked it at Parkland. Like Bell, they were required to initial the Tomlinson bullet in order to maintain the chain of custody, and at least two of them stated that they did. Remember - Oswald was still alive then.

So, why is it that we ONLY see the initials of FBI personnel at their labs in Wash. D.C?
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 September 2015, 06:45 AM   #166
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
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.
That's actually the mantra throughout the JFK conspiracy world. It starts with Mark Lane back in 1966 in RUSH TO JUDGMENT and Harold Weisberg in WHITEWASH in 1965. Heck, it even goes back to WHO KILLED KENNEDY by Thomas Buchanon in 1964, which was published BEFORE the Warren Commission rendered their findings and published 26 volumes of evidence.

Buchanon relied on misinterpreting newspaper articles, while the other two at least had the foresight to wait until the Warren Commission published their findings and evidence, which gave them much more data to scour for the odd tidbit they could emphasize.

For both those authors, and every conspiracy author since, if they can find a witness who said something against the official version, it's like it was handed down on clay tablets direct from God. Any witnesses who said anything that pointed toward Oswald is, of course, only because those witnesses were either mistaken, lying scum, or intimidated into going along with the "official version".

So from Mark Lane and others, we get nonsense like the various witnesses at the Tippit scene described the killer(s) wearing different coats / jackets, as if that's meaningful: "Benavides made reference to having seen a light-beige jacket... Barbara David testified that the killer wore 'a black coat'... Ted Callaway thought the jacket... 'had a little more tan to it'... Mrs. Markham believed the jacket was darker than the one shown to her... Reynolds described the jacket ... as 'blueish' and Scoggins told Commission Counsel that the man... wore a jacket darker than Commission exhibit 162" (RTJ, page 201).

Now, does the varying descriptions mean there were as many different shooters as there were descriptions of the jacket, and each witness somehow only saw one of the multitude of shooters?

Does it mean the same scene was staged multiple times, with Tippit being shot dead multiple times by different killers (or the same killer wearing different jackets), one for each witness?

Or does it simply mean some of the witnesses were mistaken?

They point out the men on the fifth floor didn't hear anyone walking away after the shooting, which means, they argue, Oswald wasn't up there. Of course, if the men on the fifth floor not hearing footsteps eliminates Oswald, it also eliminates everyone else in the world as well, and that means NO ONE was up there.

They ignore the inconvenient fact that numerous witnesses outside the building saw a man in the sixth floor sniper's nest window or a rifle in that window when advancing the silly argument that Oswald couldn't have been there. So the obvious conclusion, that they didn't hear anyone walking away because the shooter walked away quietly, is avoided, in favor of a less reasonable conclusion that no one was up there, despite all the contrary statements from witnesses outside the building that affirm a shooter was up there.

Lifton's nonsense starts with a mis-reading of a statement from the autopsist, turning the direction of the exit wound around ("exited from the back"), and a unique interpretation of a FBI memo ("surgery of the head area"), while Harris relies on, as you note, hearsay recollections from decades after the fact to buttress his arguments.

Authors like Lane, Weisberg, and Lifton never reach the logical conclusions here. Any logical conclusion. They are trying to sell books, and not solve a crime. Had they reached the logical conclusions from the witness testimony, like the Warren Commission did, instead of relying on outlier testimony to suggest a conspiracy, they wouldn't have such notoriety as critics of the official version.

And they certainly wouldn't have sold as many books.

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 9th September 2015, 07:03 AM   #167
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I will leave it to the more objective members of this forum to decide for themselves whether the broken character fragments and partially erased characters are just products of my imagination.
But they already have, and they have given you good reasons for that decision, which you generally ignore. If you want to unseat that decision, you either have to provide a more convincing interpretation of the facts than you have so far, or else concede that your argument is not especially convincing. Simply insinuating that an "objective" approach to your claims would accept them, and that your lack of headway must be due to your critics' intransigence, is somewhat wishful.

Quote:
C'mon guys. Even the most hard core nutters have to be just a tad suspicious about all this.
Begging the question. You may raise as many issues as you wish with the prevailing view. But unless you can provide a more convincing alternative interpretation of these facts, the prevailing view still prevails.

I simply can't stress enough that no one here will be convinced by the two-stage argument: i.e., first undermine the conventional narrative according to a high standard of proof, then with that out of the way apply a much lower standard of proof to your own claims. Your critics will necessarily apply the same standard of proof to both the conventional narrative and your claim, and they are not "hardcore nutters" for doing so. And if they find things about your claims to be more than a "tad bit suspicious," you don't get to handwave around them and expect your theory to be taken seriously.
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 September 2015, 07:15 AM   #168
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I have never in my life, claimed their were seven shots. How many more times do you intend to misrepresent me?
Asked and answered. You alluded to a MINIMUM of seven different shots in various posts by the location you believe they were fired in the Zapruder film, which I documented above. (prior to Z133, Z150-160, Z223, Z285, Z313, and two or more after Z313).



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.
"Some of them came from a suppressed weapon" is just more of the LOGICAL FALLACY known as Begging The Question. That's where you post as a fact your assumption, which you have yet to prove.

The second sentence is entirely a Circular Argument. You're arguing that the witnesses heard only one of the early shots because a silenced weapon was used, and we know that's true that a silenced weapon was used because the witnesses only heard one of the early shots. That's yet ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
The only thing laughable around here is your claim that you can't figure out why silents shots would not have been counted:-)
Because no silenced shots have been demonstrated. They have been assumed through LOGICAL FALLACIES like Begging The Question and Circular Arguments. Any questions, see the points above.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I guess that depends on what part of the "world" was impacted. The shot at 160, hit no one. Nor did the one that caused Jame's Tague's minor wound and a lead smear on the Main St. curbing.
Wait, what? The shot that hit James Tague on the cheek hit no one? Does James Tague not count? What point are you trying to make, because you're missing badly here.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
As I correctly stated, we have no way of knowing how many other shots might have been fired from suppressed weapons. I can't believe that anyone actually doesn't get that.
"Other shots" is still just the LOGICAL FALLACY of Begging The Question. You're assuming at least one, and then arguing there might have been more, without proving the existence of any silenced shots.

I can't believe you still don't get that.

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 9th September 2015, 07:31 AM   #169
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I will leave it to the more objective members of this forum to decide for themselves whether the broken character fragments and partially erased characters are just products of my imagination.

And why Bell would have selected a previously used envelope to contain the most important evidence she had ever dealt with.

And why would she have broken the chain of possession, by failing to initial that envelope as she was required to do, and claimed to have done in her ARRB

Also ask yourselves whether nursing supervisor Bell, who placed those four tiny wrist fragments into the envelope, actually told the Dallas DA and a police officer, that it contained a single, whole bullet. Good thing for her, wasn't it, that they didn't notice that she wrote on the envelope that it contained "fragments" from Connally's "arm" :-)

And why did she tell them that the bullet came from Connally's gurney, which is essentially the same thing that Connally said in his autobiography.
Still makes no sense. Bell placed four fragments in an envelope. but you quote hearsay 30-year-later recollections by Wade and 49-year-later recollections of hearsay by Nolan about a bullet to confirm the fragments claim. It's one or the other, at best. It can't be both an envelope with FRAGMENTS and an envelope with a whole bullet. Choose one, and admit one of the recollections is wrong.

And if one of the recollections is wrong, then they could all be wrong. But they can't all be right.




Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
C'mon guys. Even the most hard core nutters have to be just a tad suspicious about all this.
Your suspicion meter must be a little bit more sensitive than mine. I don't jump to attention every time my wife and I disagree on some minor point about what happened thirty years ago (we went to a particular resort this summer that we hadn't been at since 1985 - thirty years ago. We disagreed in our recollections of some minor points. I didn't think it was at all suspicious that our memories differed. I understood that was bound to happen, and doesn't mean there was a massive government coverup and that we actually went to two different resorts 30 years ago, and my wife only remembered the one resort, while I remembered the other). But that is EXACTLY the point you are making here... that Nolan can't be wrong 49 years after the fact, Wade can't be wrong 30 years after the fact, and Bell somehow corroborates both, although she remembers an envelope with fragments, and they both talk of a bullet.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Now, combine all of this with the fact that CE399 contains NONE of the initials of the men who marked it at Parkland. Like Bell, they were required to initial the Tomlinson bullet in order to maintain the chain of custody, and at least two of them stated that they did. Remember - Oswald was still alive then.
Which two men testified they marked the bullet AT PARKLAND? Cite their testimony. Please, let's get to the bottom of this. Where did they testify to this?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
So, why is it that we ONLY see the initials of FBI personnel at their labs in Wash. D.C?
Asking a question is not the same as establishing the question as true, is it Robert? In other words, does a loaded question truly have any meaning?

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 9th September 2015, 07:56 AM   #170
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
And still waiting for Robert Harris to provide the EVIDENCE establishing Jim Braden had anything to do with the assassination of JFK.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2038
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2097
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2566
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2572
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2879
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2954
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3110

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=68
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=114


Bob, what's the upper limit on how many times I need to ask before you get around to documenting your claims here?

We already know the lower limit is nine.
That's at least how many times I've asked already.

I'm beginning to suspect you're trying to avoid talking about Braden anymore.

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 9th September 2015, 08:02 AM   #171
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,010
Robert: What is it about being silent that gives a bullet the magical properties that allow it to no longer exist once fired? Just because a bullet does not hit anybody does not mean it leaves no mark, or evidence.

It is truly laughable to believe that if nobody heard a bullet it would not be counted. We would reasonably expect bullets to be counted regardless of if they were heard or not, by other means.

But alas, you have so far expected us to disregard the bullets, shell casings, and rifle we have in evidence, because they can not be shown to have been fired to your satisfaction.

You are also asking us to accept at least one silenced weapon, whose bullets were not heard, were not seen, and have left no physical evidence.

Almost exactly as though they did not exist.
__________________
@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).
Tomtomkent 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 September 2015, 08:15 AM   #172
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Just filling out my scorecard here:
  • Silnced Weapon used even though the author cannot produce a rifle with the capabilites needed.
  • Nobody has ever, ever, ever, swept Dealey Plaza with a metal detector (assumed by the author's insistence that "Nobody knows how many shots were fired")
  • People being shot at random all behave the same, and have total recall of the event
  • Echoes don't matter.
  • The Warren Commission can't be trusted, but people who've never been to Dallas, or fired a rifle can.
  • Hearsay recollections from decades after the fact are better than, and take precedence over direct testimony made within a year of the event.
  • All the hard evidence is falsified. Anything pointing to Oswald is especially suspicious.
  • The FBI can't be trusted and are part of the coverup, unless they said something that sounds conspiratorial. Then it's automatically trustworthy.
  • Connally lied under oath but his testimony can still be quoted with no reservations to prove a conspiracy.
  • Assumptions are better than actually proving anything. Circular reasoning, begging the question, and other logical fallacies work too. Loaded questions are just dandy.
  • Anything found on a conspiracy website can be cited freely, and doesn't have to be debated as to whether it's meaningful or not.
__________________
"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 9th September 2015, 08:24 AM   #173
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I will leave it to the more objective members of this forum to decide for themselves whether the broken character fragments and partially erased characters are just products of my imagination.
Sigh.

Why bother trying to actually prove anything when you can just assert it's true and forever-after beg that question?

You're doing it again, Robert.

"the broken character fragments and partially erased characters" is just unproven statements by you that are asserted but not established.

Did you examine the original envelope in the archives? Or did you just look at a photo of the envelope? If just a photo, what generation was it? And what did you do to eliminate photographic artifact?

Reminder: Just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is that something:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/3bc1e0507...l4do1_1280.png

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 9th September 2015, 08:41 AM   #174
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
And as long as we're reminding you of points you've yet to defend,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2073

Why shoot from three different locations using three different weapons when the goal is to frame a lone-nut patsy?

Wouldn't the best approach be to have your best shooter fire ONE shot, leave the weapon behind, and frame the patsy for owning that weapon?

What's the point of multiple shooters again?

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 9th September 2015, 01:50 PM   #175
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
On the very next page, Connally *supposedly* says "The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat."
"supposedly"?? Are you still on this liar, liar campaign against Herskowitz? If he lied about any of his clients, he would have never gotten a job again. He has NEVER been accused of such a thing, with only one very small exception.

Connally was never asked about looking back at JFK, and may have thought there was no need for him to parrot his wife. But watch him in the film. I think he at least caught a glimpse of JFK with his hands raised.

http://jfkhistory.com/lookedatjfk.gif

Quote:
But that, like the claim about the bullet, is entirely new to the book, and nowhere to be found in his testimony to a special committee of Congress nor a Presidential Commission, both of whom were investigating the assassination of the President.
Yep, there are probably a LOT of other things as well, that he wasn't asked about.

Quote:
LOGICAL FALLACY known as a appeal to ridicule.
Gosh, we never see that kind of thing around here, do we

Quote:
That won't work, Robert.
A book, by its nature, is hearsay. It is not evidence of what Connally thought.
No, it is PROOF of what he thought. And more importantly, his recollection was solidly corroborated by the men who encountered that nurse, shortly after his surgery.

Quote:
But let's go with your argument for a moment. Your argument is that Connally withheld pertinent information from two official investigations, and in fact, lied under oath to both the WC and the HSCA.
Please be specific about what "lie" you are accusing him of now. Cite him verbatim, please.

Quote:
That follows from your arguments about the book being Connally's own words. So why are you quoting a man who, according to your own arguments, is untrustworthy and lied under oath?
Because he didn't lie under oath. That only happened in your imagination, Hank.

Quote:
Or Hershkwitz misunderstood something Connally said, or paraphrased him incorrectly, or added something to spice up sales ( As a co-author, Herskowitz gets a cut of the sales, does he not?)
This is getting ridiculous. You can't even decide who your latest liar is.

Here is an opinion from one crazy, conspiracy theorist. Both men told the truth. Herskowitz cited Connally accurately and Connally was truthful.

Besides the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, to make these ugly accusations, Connally's story was solidly corroborated by the men who were told by that nurse, that she held the bullet that came from his "gurney". Wade saw her holding it in his hand.

And the fact that nursing supervisor Bell, flatly denied the FBI's claim that she told them she gave a single "fragment" to Nolan. The FBI lied about that Hank. Besides the fact that Bell denied their claim, ask yourself how she could have placed four, almost microscopic particles into an envelope and then told the DA, a police officer, and Bill Stinson that it contained a single, whole bullet?

Lying to a police officer and the Dallas district attorney was a pretty serious thing. It was and is illegal. I would have amounted to obstruction of justice. Of course, she never did that. She would also have been a total idiot to hand over an envelope marked "fragments" from Connally's "arm", claiming that it held a single, whole bullet.

It is ridiculously obvious that the nurse who recovered the bullet and showed it to Wade, was NOT Audrey Bell.

Quote:
Your listing only one possibility and ignoring all other possibilities, is, you guessed it, another LOGICAL FALLACY - a false dichotomy.
You guys are way ahead of me on this "fallacy" thing. But tell me, what is the formal name for people who are totally devoid of evidence and have to resort to accusing every witness who disagrees with them, of being "liars"?

Quote:
He gave his first interview about the assassination just five days after the assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsIGlSFB7E4

How come there's no mention of all this pertinent stuff then? His mention of seeing a bullet would not have "turned the country on its head" at that point in time. But no mention whatsoever.
Probably for the same reason that he didn't mention countless other things that he would talk about later. The man wasn't in very good condition then.

Quote:
And of course, Dr. Shaw was one of Connally's doctors at Parkland. He never mentioned a bullet.
None of the doctors claimed to have removed a bullet from Connally's leg, for the obvious reason, that it fell to the floor before he went into surgery.. duh.

Quote:
And Doctor Gregory also was one of the Parkland physicians who treated Connally. Nothing in his testimony about a bullet at Parkland.
Ditto.

Quote:
And of course, nothing in Connally's testimony. But then, he lied to Congress and to the Warren Commission, is what your argument is. So why are you quoting him, exactly?
I'm still waiting for you to prove that he lied. How many times do you intend to ask me this same question, based solely on your imagination?

Quote:
Curiously, he says he won't speak out publicly, but there he *supposedly* is, speaking out publicly, to a *supposed* friend.
Yup, he changed his mind and decided to come forward, when he was on his death bed. He died on June 15th, 1993. His book wasn't published until November 1 of 1993. The things he said in that book, were bonafied, death bed statements. What possible reason could he have had, to tell lies?

Quote:
But none of the above is documented, verifiable, or established in any way. It's all hearsay. According to some person named Doug Thompson, who didn't publish this story until more than a decade after Connally's death - well after Connally was NOT around to deny or confirm the substance of the story.
OHMIGOD!! More liars.

Quote:
And of course, Doug Thompson was a such a good friend, he didn't even know how to spell Connally's last name (he has it as "Connolly"). That hardly speaks to their closeness.
That just speaks to the fact that I linked to a site with a very poor copy of the article. Thompson was a long time journalist and the publisher of the Internet's first news blog. He would never have made the errors in that copy, which probably were the result of a hasty OCR of the original.

You can read an accurate version here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...on_the_bes.htm

Quote:
And of course, Thompson says the discussion in question happened in 1982, and he is relating it 24 years later. It's again, not evidence, but a recollection of a hearsay conversation.
Uh huh. Liars, liars everywhere! Connally was a liar, Herskowitz was a liar, and now Thompson was a liar. Of course, you can't produce even a shred of evidence to prove any of your accusations - only the fact that they happen to disagree with your favorite JFK theory:-)

Thompson is a lifelong journalist and publisher. A guy like that, would never lie, because it would destroy his credibility. Other than you, you will never find anyone who has accused him of dishonesty.

And your endless use of the term, "hearsay", is getting tiresome. It is pointless and misleading, because statements like Connally made in his own autobiography or by reputable writers and journalists, might technically fall under that definition, but that in no way, gives you a reason to claim that they lied.

So far, you haven't proven that any of them lied about anything, throughout their entire careers. You ONLY call them liars because you don't like what they said.

Quote:
You've used the same arguments to try to support an argument for a second rifle in the Depository (relying on the 30-year after the fact recollection of a hearsay conversation recalled by Frank Ellsworth),
Yeah, I know. This federal agent was a liar too.. sigh.

Do you realize how ludicrous it is, to claim that I am the one with the problem

Quote:
and to support an argument for a found bullet (relying on a 49-year after the fact recollection of a hearsay conversation recalled by Officer Nolan).
Why do you understate my analysis? Why are you pretending that Nolan was the only one who corroborated Connally?

Officer Nolan, district attorney Wade, John Connally and Bill Stinson ALL corroborated the fact that this nurse told them that she held a whole bullet. And three of those witnesses corroborated the fact that the bullet came from Connally's gurney.

Supervisor Audrey Bell, further corroborated those four men, by flatly denying that she gave those four tiny fragments to officer Nolan. And in turn, each of them corroborated her, by describing a nurse whose statements proved that she was not holding the tiny fragments that Bell processed.

Do you intend to accuse all of them of being liars, too?

To (sort of) paraphrase another Star Trek flick, there comes a time when, "Denial is futile".

Quote:
This is no different. You have no evidence, so you rely on whatever you can grab onto to support your beliefs,
Uh huh. I just "grab onto" documented statements by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas district attorney, a police officer and the supervisor of nursing in the Parkland ER - all of whom were 100% consistent and corroborative with one another.

I might as well just grab a witness or two, from out by the dumpster, eh:-)

Now tell us about your witnesses and evidence which proves that this long list of inconvenient witnesses are liars.

Quote:
and ironically, throw out all the actual valid evidence (like the three shells, the nearly whole bullet, and the two large fragments).
I threw out NOTHING. Prove that Oswald, or anyone for that matter, fired those three shells that day, and then we can talk about it.

As for the fragments allegedly found in the limo, they might have been the result of a shot by Oswald. But to accept their validity, we do have to put a lot of trust in Mr. Hoover's organization, which based on the evidence is much like trusting OJ's testimony.

I follow the facts and evidence Hank. I will believe your statements when you can prove them. Until you do that, I will not accept them any more than I accept equally unproven, conspiracy theories.

Quote:
But, according to you, lied to two different investigations into the assassination.
I said no such thing! Why would you make up something like that?

Quote:
According to you, he's not trustworthy.
Hank, I know you aren't a liar, so I must assume that you just misunderstood me. So why don't you just go ahead and cite me VERBATIM, making the statement that you thought, was an accusation that Connally was not trustworthy?

Don't worry, if you forget I will remind you.

Quote:
According to you, he did tell the truth in the Herskowitz book, but you don't tell us what special property you possess to be able to discern when a man is lying or telling the truth.
That's true. Only you seem to have acquired that psychic ability.

All I do, is check for corroborations. Very few witnesses in this case, outside of the massive consensus who heard the shots at 285 and 313, were better corroborated than Connally was, in his statement that the bullet fell to the floor and was recovered by that nurse.

Let's cut to the chase, Hank.

If ONLY Wade made the statement he did, or only Connally, or only Nolan, or only Stinson or only Bell, you might have a case that ONE witness was a liar or suffered some kind of delusion.

But there are too many, saying the same thing. Consider just Wade and Nolan. Do you REALLY think that they both suffered some kind of delusion, thinking the nurse told them she had a whole bullet, from Connally's "gurney"??

I specifically asked Nolan if he knew Wade, Connally or Stinson, thinking that perhaps he was influenced by them. But he said he had never met them either before or after that day.

To reject all of their statements, you have to believe that they all suffered the same delusions or told the same lies. That makes no sense.

And EVERYTHING Bell said in her testimonies with the HSCA and ARRB, proves BRD, that she was not the nurse who Connally, Wade, Nolan and Stinson encountered, and she was NOT the nurse who passed her evidence envelope to Nolan.

Look at CE-842, Hank. You don't have to be a crazed conspiracy theorist to be suspicious of all the partial erasures and character fragments. And where are Bell's initials?

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png

I guess they must be in the same place that SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd's are
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 September 2015, 02:08 PM   #176
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And as long as we're reminding you of points you've yet to defend,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2073

Why shoot from three different locations using three different weapons when the goal is to frame a lone-nut patsy?
The goal was never to frame a "lone-nut patsy". There was huge motivation by pretty much all of the main suspects, to connect the assassination to Castro, however. And it almost worked. The DPD declared that the assassination was a communist conspiracy.

The "lone nut" crap was the product of LBJ, who didn't want to have to deal with a public outcry, demanding that we declare war on Cuba, which could have led to a nuclear war.

And it would have been pretty tough to maintain the moral high ground, since we had been trying to assassinate Castro throughout the previous year.

Quote:
Wouldn't the best approach be to have your best shooter fire ONE shot, leave the weapon behind, and frame the patsy for owning that weapon?
Uh huh. And one guy with a Tommy gun probably could have pulled off the Valentine's day massacre.

This crime was carried out by a handful of thugs. And based on the number of misses and poorly aimed shots, they were probably not the best. Perhaps Marcello told Ferrie to recruit people who could not be directly connected to him or were known to be top notch, mafia hitmen.

It's pointless to second guess them.

Second guessing the killers is a poor substitute for addressing the fact that none of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone or that the 223 shot was heard by no one.

Nor is it a substitute for dealing with these reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

What caused them Hank? Does the fact that they were being shot at at the time, give you a clue?
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 September 2015, 02:13 PM   #177
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Sigh.

Why bother trying to actually prove anything when you can just assert it's true and forever-after beg that question?

You're doing it again, Robert.

"the broken character fragments and partially erased characters" is just unproven statements by you that are asserted but not established.
I'm not going to quibble with you Hank. Every time you claim to be unable to see partial erasures and broken character fragment, I am just going to post this, which you seem to have deleted

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png
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 September 2015, 02:24 PM   #178
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[list][*]Hearsay recollections from decades after the fact are better than, and take precedence over direct testimony made within a year of the event.
I never said that. And there is not "direct testimony" which contradicts the documented citations that I posed.

Quote:
[*]All the hard evidence is falsified. Anything pointing to Oswald is especially suspicious.
I never said that either. As always, I go with the facts and evidence. Complaining that I dispute particular evidence, is a poor substitute for addressing that evidence.

Why don't you start, by telling us why Johnsen and Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399?

Quote:
[*]The FBI can't be trusted and are part of the coverup, unless they said something that sounds conspiratorial. Then it's automatically trustworthy.
The FBI's stated agenda was to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone. That was direct from Hoover. It is ridiculously obvious that they carried out that agenda, which I suspect, is why you have failed to address a multitude of evidence proving exactly that.

Quote:
[*]Connally lied under oath but his testimony
How many more times are you going to repeat that blatantly false statement? Cite me verbatim, accusing him of lying under oath.

Quote:
[*]Assumptions are better than actually proving anything. Circular reasoning, begging the question, and other logical fallacies work too. Loaded questions are just dandy.
What a massive pile of deceitful crap.
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 September 2015, 05:46 PM   #179
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Connally was never asked about looking back at JFK
Your arguments are wrong. Your facts are wrong.

Governor Connally: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back...
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.


The Herskowitz book says that Connally said: "The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat."

There is a direct contradiction there. Either the Governor was not truthful to the Warren Commission about what he saw or the book is not accurate. Choose one. You cannot choose both. That's a logical impossibility.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...and may have thought there was no need for him to parrot his wife. But watch him in the film. I think he at least caught a glimpse of JFK with his hands raised.

http://jfkhistory.com/lookedatjfk.gif
Nobody cares what you think, Robert. Honestly, this isn't about what you think you can see. It's about what Connally said. Connally stated he never saw the President during the shooting but *supposedly* says he saw the President with his hands to his throat in the book. Choose one as truthful. They both cannot be.

You will protest, but the essence of the point here is simple: If you credit the book as accurate, you must claim Connally's testimony was false, but that then destroys Connally's credibility as a witness, as lying to federal investigators who are investigating the assassination of the President is pretty serious stuff. And of course, if you admit the book is wrong, and his testimony is correct, then you lose your main talking point about this supposed bullet from the gurney in the operating room.

Either way, you're not doing too good in making an argument. You're ignoring (and even denying) the testimony above, and crediting a ghost-written book published after his death as more credible than his first person testimony which he gave when his memory was fresher.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Please be specific about what "lie" you are accusing him of now. Cite him verbatim, please.
See above. I'm not accusing him of any lie. Your argument that the book contains Connally's own words does that. Did Connally see the President or not? The book says yes, his testimony says no. Which one is accurate? I would vote for the testimony because it is first person, given under oath, and recorded by a court reporter. The book has too many cooks, which could have -- and obviously did -- introduce errors.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Because he didn't lie under oath. That only happened in your imagination, Hank.
No, it only happened in your version of events, not mine.

ME: The book is only hearsay.
YOU: No, it is PROOF of what he thought..
YOU: ...there is no doubt at all that he said exactly what he was quoted saying.
YOU: It is a first person, verbatim citation from the man's autobiograpy. Disputing that he said it, is insane.


You credit the book as accurate, despite the fact it has many hands involved, and is based on Connally's recollections from nearly 30 years after the fact. The testimony tells a different story. Only one can be correct. Choose one. Your version -- that the book is correct -- means Connally must have been less than truthful to the Warren Commission. In simplest terms, if the book is accurate, then Connally lied to the Warren Commission. And you are arguing the book is accurate.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
This is getting ridiculous. You can't even decide who your latest liar is.

Here is an opinion from one crazy, conspiracy theorist. Both men told the truth. Herskowitz cited Connally accurately and Connally was truthful.
So then Connally MUST have been untruthful to the Warren Commission, because he denied seeing the President during the shooting.

He denied seeing the President to the Congressional Committee 15 years later as well:

Mr. DODD. Now. Governor, as I understood it from what your
testimony was, you heard what sounded like a shot?
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct.
Mr. DODD. And you turned to your right?
Mr. CONNALLY. Right.
Mr. DODD. But you did not see the President when you turned around?
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct, I didn't turn all the way around, I was sitting, basically facing forward. I heard the shot, I looked over my right shoulder, I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye, and I mentally said I will turn to my left and see if I can see him, and I never made that full turn, I got halfway back facing forward when I was hit.




Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Besides the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, to make these ugly accusations...
Bob, the only one making the accusations is you. Remember, I wrote, and I stress again, "But let's go with your argument for a moment. Your argument is that Connally withheld pertinent information from two official investigations, and in fact, lied under oath to both the WC and the HSCA. That follows from your arguments about the book being Connally's own words. So why are you quoting a man who, according to your own arguments, is untrustworthy and lied under oath?"

So did Connally see the President, or did he not? His book says he did, his testimony says he didn't. Which one is more accurate, according to you?

I vote for his testimony being accurate and the book being wrong. Which one do you vote for? It is your own arguments that forces you to choose. Choose one.

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 9th September 2015, 05:58 PM   #180
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Cite me verbatim...
This particular deflection grows tiresome. You write lengthy treatments, both on your web presence and here. These treatises incorporate several lines of reasoning, several premises -- hidden and explicit -- and draw one or more conclusions. The thesis of many of them, as well as their constituent subtheses, can often be summarized in a sentence or two which, although not necessarily actually written by you in those words, accurately summarizes either your line of reasoning or the reasonable implications thereof.

Demanding "verbatim" accounting for these summaries has the effect of filtering the kinds of legitimate responses you are willing to address, and this does not help you in a debate. Readers are quite well equipped to read what you write and to pass judgment on whether your critics have summarized or paraphrased you accurately. Demanding a peculiar production smacks of evasion, since it can be stipulated that a critic's summary of your claim, presented as a reminder, was never meant to be the exact words you chose.

Rather than rely on this rather ham-fisted tactic of demanding that which innocently can't be done -- an empty posture -- you will do better to correct and clarify the impression that your critic has formed. If it is accurate enough, address it. If it is inaccurate, explain with greater clarity what you really meant.

Understand also that assertions you proffer often have necessary consequents. If someone asks you about those consequents and tries to hold you accountable for them, you should realize that you are accountable for those implications even if you did not explicitly state them. Sidestepping them reveals that your claims haven't been tested or thought through completely. Instances where you cannot account for the reasonable consequents of your claims make your critics "a tad suspicious."

Quote:
What a massive pile of deceitful crap.
No, not really. I and others have gone to extraordinary lengths to show you in great depth and detail in what ways your argument is predicated on your subjective judgment and opinion. Those predications are not probative no matter how wishfully you demand they be.

You say you have facts and evidence that support your belief. Let me repeat what I said about that before. With few exceptions, everyone on both sides of this question has equal access to the same facts. What differs between one position and another is the interpretation of those facts and the development of them into evidence. That's a "soft" process. You can't point to a fact, tout your interpretation of it with respect to some question, and say that the objective strength of the fact is the rationale for taking your interpretation as somehow incontrovertible.

In preceding pages you have at times lamented that many (most?) others in the JFK debate are "idiots." I assume you mean that they, like most of us here, are not convinced by your reasoning. But you need to consider that perhaps they, like us, see truly that your case is predicated mostly upon personal opinions, judgments, and bare extrapolations. Either consciously or unconsciously, you deny the subjective nature of that predication. This, not some hard-core devotion to an alternative or some befuddled disinterest, seems to be the most common reason people reject your presentation. The more you proclaim the alleged closed-mindedness of your critics, the less credible your presentation objectively seems.
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 September 2015, 07:31 PM   #181
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I'm not going to quibble with you Hank. Every time you claim to be unable to see partial erasures and broken character fragment, I am just going to post this, which you seem to have deleted

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png
Obviously, Bob, we have all seen that and any omission of the link in any reply to you will not change that fact. Instead of addressing the points raised relative to your *interpretation* of what *everybody* can see in that image, you simply repost the image and insist that anybody can see what you see there. This is nothing like an argument.
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 September 2015, 08:05 PM   #182
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Curiously, he says he won't speak out publicly, but there he *supposedly* is, speaking out publicly, to a *supposed* friend.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yup, he changed his mind and decided to come forward, when he was on his death bed. He died on June 15th, 1993. His book wasn't published until November 1 of 1993. The things he said in that book, were bonafied, death bed statements. What possible reason could he have had, to tell lies?
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again. Please try to stick to the points I made and rebut them.
Unless, of course, you can't.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
But none of the above is documented, verifiable, or established in any way. It's all hearsay. According to some person named Doug Thompson, who didn't publish this story until more than a decade after Connally's death - well after Connally was NOT around to deny or confirm the substance of the story.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
OHMIGOD!! More liars.
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again. Please try to stick to the points I made and rebut them.
Unless, of course, you can't.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And of course, Doug Thompson was a such a good friend, he didn't even know how to spell Connally's last name (he has it as "Connolly"). That hardly speaks to their closeness.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That just speaks to the fact that I linked to a site with a very poor copy of the article. Thompson was a long time journalist and the publisher of the Internet's first news blog. He would never have made the errors in that copy, which probably were the result of a hasty OCR of the original.

You can read an accurate version here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...on_the_bes.htm
Your newly cited website has two versions of the Governor's name, so while it's revised, it's not the original. Whoever corrected it missed one "Connolly".

The version you cited previously,

http://www.rense.com/general70/connol.htm

has it as "Connolly" only. So it's a revision as well. Whoever revised it apparently didn't know how Connally's name was spelled either.

Here's the true original version, from the actual source website, Thompson's own "Capitol Hill Blue":

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/24557

It has the Governor's last name spelled three ways: Connally, Connolly, and Connnolly. I see a journalist who isn't exactly too careful about what he writes, and apparently wasn't that close to the Governor that he was even certain how to spell the Governor's name.

Your guesses about how the mispellings got introduced into the article are meaningless. So while you assert that "He [Thompson] would never have made the errors in that copy", that is simply an assertion lacking any substance. And Thompson most certainly did make those errors, as the original version on his own website attests.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And of course, Thompson says the discussion in question happened in 1982, and he is relating it 24 years later. It's again, not evidence, but a recollection of a hearsay conversation.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Uh huh. Liars, liars everywhere! Connally was a liar, Herskowitz was a liar, and now Thompson was a liar. Of course, you can't produce even a shred of evidence to prove any of your accusations - only the fact that they happen to disagree with your favorite JFK theory:-)

Thompson is a lifelong journalist and publisher. A guy like that, would never lie, because it would destroy his credibility. Other than you, you will never find anyone who has accused him of dishonesty.
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again. Please try to stick to the points I made and rebut them.
Unless, of course, you can't.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And your endless use of the term, "hearsay", is getting tiresome. It is pointless and misleading, because statements like Connally made in his own autobiography or by reputable writers and journalists, might technically fall under that definition, but that in no way, gives you a reason to claim that they lied.[emphasis added]
You know what's even more tiresome than my having to repeatedly use the "hearsay" term?

Your repeated use of hearsay and decades-later recollections to make your case from some people not even involved in the case (like Thompson's article), instead of using actual testimony by actual witnesses. So you ignore Connally's own testimony and quote instead some ghost-written book published after Connally's death, and insist the book is correct, even though I can establish it differs from Connally's own original testimony to the Warren Commission. Can you explain the discrepancy and account for it reasonably?

And there is no "might" about it. All your sources about the supposed extra Parkland Hospital bullet are either decades-later recollections, hearsay claims, or even worse, BOTH. Please rebut the points I made, not the ones you wish I made. And do provide some evidence instead of hearsay and decades-later recollections, if, in fact you know what that is and have any of that to cite.

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 10th September 2015, 12:34 AM   #183
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,010
The word 'liar' is getting tossed around a lot. I think it is being misused. It is not a synonym for 'inaccurate'. There reasons to doubt claims and statements without thinking that the person was lying:

*Human memory is not a film. It is subject to confusion, panic, and it is mutable. This is not lying.

*Human memory grows less accurate with time. People 'remember' details learned later, and the memory can change depending on the narrative the person has told themselves. These are not lies. They are honest mis-recollections.

* A book is not subject to the scrutiny and control of a sworn testimony. There is no threat of being held in contempt of court, or criminal charges for false testimony to a book. Showing it is less useful as evidence (when testimony is already flawed evidence) is not an accusation of a lie.

* A book that was co-authored, and published after the death of the witness can not be attributed as his words. We do not know, and can not establish, how much, if any, of the book WAS his words directly. We do not know how much was paraphrased, or direct quotes. We can not state how much was misunderstood by the co-author, or by the editor, or misrepresented. It could be a true and honest report, but, and this is the point, we can show it to be. It is the words of one man, reported by another. It is hearsay. Pointing out this limits the use of the text as evidence is not an accusation of a lie.
__________________
@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).
Tomtomkent 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 September 2015, 03:49 AM   #184
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Obviously, Bob, we have all seen that and any omission of the link in any reply to you will not change that fact. Instead of addressing the points raised relative to your *interpretation* of what *everybody* can see in that image, you simply repost the image and insist that anybody can see what you see there. This is nothing like an argument.
But everyone CAN see what I see. Notice also, that many of the partially erased characters reside in in a dark smudge at the bottom-center of the envelope. That is exactly what we should expect when there as been a lot of erasure. That would never have been there if this had been a clean, previously unused envelope.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png

Also notice the various line segments which are not at all, subtle and are entirely independent from any of the sets of initials.
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 September 2015, 05:33 AM   #185
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Yup, he changed his mind and decided to come forward, when he was on his death bed. He died on June 15th, 1993. His book wasn't published until November 1 of 1993. The things he said in that book, were bonafied, death bed statements. What possible reason could he have had, to tell lies?

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again. Please try to stick to the points I made and rebut them.
Unless, of course, you can't.
This was not a straw man argument. You continue to accuse Connally and/or his writer of being liars. People tend to be honest on their deathbeds, especially Southern Christians who think they are going to have to answer for their sins when they get to those pearly gates.

I also asked you what possible reason he could have had for lying - a question you seem to have dodged. You need to address that question, since you have no evidence or logic behind your endless "liar, liar" accusations.

Quote:
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again.
Sorry Hank, but your "points" are in the same class with the worst of the conspiracy buffs. From your "one early shot" theory to your claim that the witnesses mistook the head strike for a separate rifle shot, to your endless attacks accusing perfectly credible witnesses of being liars.

I get a LOT of really bad theories in the comment sections of my video presentations, but very few are as bad as yours. So, I'm sorry Hank, but I probably won't waste much time studying some of your "points".

Quote:
Your newly cited website has two versions of the Governor's name, so while it's revised, it's not the original. Whoever corrected it missed one "Connolly".
Fair enough Hank. He got one letter wrong in the article. You certainly have a knack for figuring out what's important. Of course, any writer who made a mistake like that, MUST be a liar, right?

OHMIGOD!! More liars.

Quote:
You're ignoring the points I made to rebut straw man arguments again.
No, that is also not a straw man. Your entire argument has been based on totally unsupported accusations of dishonesty. Herskowitz was a liar, or Connally was a liar and now Thompson was a liar.

You've even implied that the Dallas Morning News lied, since their interview of Wade, was "hearsay". If you really didn't mean to make that accusation, then please explain why are you concerned about the article's validity?

Quote:
You know what's even more tiresome than my having to repeatedly use the "hearsay" term?
Your "hearsay" arguments are just another form of your endless liar, liar accusations. It would not matter to you or anyone else, that Connally's own autobiography or the DMN article was "hearsay", unless there was a reason to suspect that it contained lies. Of course, there is no reason, but that hasn't even slowed you down:-)

Quote:
Your repeated use of hearsay and decades-later recollections to make your case from some people not even involved in the case (like Thompson's article), instead of using actual testimony by actual witnesses.
There is no doubt that neither John or Nellie Connally ever really believed the WC's conclusions. Both in fact, disagreed with the SBT. This is from JBC's 1966 interview with Life magazine.

“They talk about the ‘one-bullet or two-bullet theory,’” he concluded, “but as far as I’m concerned, there is no ‘theory.’ There is my absolute knowledge, and Nellie’s too, that one bullet caused the president’s first wound, then an entirely separate shot struck me.”

Mrs. Connally added, “No one will ever convince me otherwise.”

Her husband concurred: “It’s a certainty. I’ll never change my mind.”


As for your complaint that some of the citations I posted were not made under oath, why would that matter, since you have practically every witness in the DP that day, who testified about the shots, being full of crap. You don't buy John Connally's testimony that he heard a first shot and was then hit by a silent shot.

You don't buy Mrs. Connally's testimony that she she heard a second shot after looking back at JFK and then reacted to that shot by pulling her husband back to her - EVEN WHEN WE CAN SEE HER DOING EXACTLY THAT, in perfect unison with the other visible and highly dramatic reactions.

BTW, what was your "rebuttal" to that? You can't say she had a faulty memory, Hank, because we clearly see her reacting at 290-292, exactly as she described. Was she suffering a delusion, thinking she heard a nonexistent gunshot?

And you can't claim it was too many years ago. Nellie wrote out copious notes, describing the assassination just after her and John returned from the hospital. She read from those notes on C-SPAN. Move the timer to about 11:30.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c447235...-assassination

Now watch her in the Zapruder film. We can easily see her snap back toward her husband and pull him back - all in the range of 290-292, in perfect unison with the other reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

You reject ALL of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day, who heard only a single shot and then closely bunched shots at the end, claiming without a speck of evidence that they were confused, thinking that the bullet striking the head was an extra high powered rifle shot.

So please don't tell me that you reject to the Parkland witness because their statements were not sworn testimony. It wouldn't have bothered you in the slightest if it had been, would it Hank? You would have called them liars too, or confused or delusion or whatever.

Quote:
So you ignore Connally's own testimony
What did I ignore?? Why are so many of your accusations against me, devoid of specificity? If you think I ignored something he said, then tell me about it SPECIFICALLY. Or is possible Hank, that if you are specific, you know that your argument will get shot down:-)

Quote:
and quote instead some ghost-written book published after Connally's death, and insist the book is correct, even though I can establish it differs from Connally's own original testimony to the Warren Commission. Can you explain the discrepancy and account for it reasonably?
Cut the crap, Hank. Your attempts to smear Herskowitz are ridiculously transparent and false. The man's reputation is impeccable. No one except you has ever accused him of dishonesty. Your accusations that he was dishonest, have no basis in fact or evidence. You ONLY make that accusation because you don't like what Connally stated in his autobiography.

And your claim that Connally contradicted his WC testimony is equally bogus. Cite VERBATIM anything he testified to that contradicted what he said in that book.

He did indeed, omit the fact that a nurse recovered the bullet from his leg, something that would have created a public furor and resulted in a war between him and J. Edgar. But that was not a lie or a contradiction.

Quote:
And there is no "might" about it. All your sources about the supposed extra Parkland Hospital bullet are either decades-later recollections, hearsay claims, or even worse
Tell me something Hank. Is it your opinion that Connally, Nolan and Wade, all talked about a bullet from Connally's gurney, just a coincidence?

And why do you suppose that Audrey Bell lied to the DA and the cop, telling them that the evidence envelope contained a whole bullet rather than four tiny, lead particles?

Amazing isn't it, that neither Nolan or Wade noticed that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments" from Connally's "arm"??
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 September 2015, 06:24 AM   #186
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This particular deflection grows tiresome. You write lengthy treatments, both on your web presence and here.
This has nothing to do with the length of my articles, since my accusers only have to cite the relevant passage. If the accusation is that I misrepresent witnesses, then just cite my statements which misrepresent.

The reason that some of the more radical of my opponents make accusations that they cannot support, is that they lied. It really is just that simple.

It is a ridiculously lame excuse to claim that they cannot support their attacks because my articles are too long.
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 September 2015, 07:03 AM   #187
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your arguments are wrong. Your facts are wrong.

"Navy"]Governor Connally: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,
Read your own citation and watch him in the Zapruder film. He was referring to the his turn to the right BEFORE he was hit, wasn't he? And we can easily see that he was correct. He didn't turn far enough to see JFK then. It was only AFTER he was hit that he turned back far enough to see JFK.

http://jfkhistory.com/lookedatjfk.gif

Is it possible Hank, that you didn't understand that?

Quote:
The Herskowitz book
No, it was John Connally's book. He only hired Herskowitz because he wanted a professional writer to help him. You need to let go of this idiotic claim that the man was a liar.

Quote:
says that Connally said: "The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat."
Yes, and looking at him later in the film, it is obvious that he did.

Quote:
There is a direct contradiction there.
No, there is a direct failure on your part to understand the sequence of events. Connally was correct in BOTH cases. He didn't turn far enough to see JFK immediately following 160 and he DID turn far enough, by about frame 274.

It's one thing to constantly misrepresent me, but you shouldn't misrepresent the most important witnesses, Hank.

Quote:
Either the Governor was not truthful to the Warren Commission about what he saw or the book is not accurate.
Hank, I really want to believe that you just didn't comprehend what Connally said and what he did, but I already demonstrated for you that Connally looked back at JFK, later in the film. Were you just hoping that I wouldn't notice your attempt to change the sequence that Connally described?

Quote:
Nobody cares what you think, Robert. Honestly, this isn't about what you think you can see. It's about what Connally said.
I feel horribly ashamed to have demanded that you believe me because of what I "think", rather the evidence I have posted, which far exceeds what all of you guys combined, have posted.

Quote:
Connally stated he never saw the President during the shooting
I'm not sure what obscenity I would be allowed to express about that flagrantly false claim, so I will only say that you are wrong. And the fact that you have repeated that same crap five times so far, suggests that you know it too.

Connally ONLY stated that he didn't see JFK when he turned to his right, following that first shot, which was prior to him (Connally) getting hit.

PLEASE stop misrepresenting him.

Quote:
but *supposedly* says he saw the President with his hands to his throat in the book. Choose one as truthful. They both cannot be.
Of course they can, and they were. Connally was never known to be a liar, and you have no right to accuse him of that. The Zapruder film proves that he was right about not seeing JFK prior to 223, and right about looking back at JFK later.

I know how desperate you are to accuse all these men of lying, but you are consistently wrong, which is what happens when you base your conclusions on your personal prejudices rather than the evidence and reason.

Quote:
You will protest, but the essence of the point here is simple: If you credit the book as accurate, you must claim Connally's testimony was false,
That's the sixth time you have repeated this easily refuted claim. Maybe if you get to a dozen or so, it it will come true:-)

Quote:
but that then destroys Connally's credibility as a witness, as lying to federal investigators who are investigating the assassination of the President is pretty serious stuff.
It sure is, but he didn't lie to them and he didn't lie in his book, no matter how badly you wish that he did.

Quote:
And of course, if you admit the book is wrong, and his testimony is correct, then you lose your main talking point about this supposed bullet from the gurney in the operating room.
To spare you further humiliation, I'm going to delete the remaining five repetitions of this demonstrably false accusation.

Quote:
You credit the book as accurate
Of course it was accurate, which is why you have to resort to misrepresenting Connally and making all kinds of phony "liar, liar" accusations.
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 September 2015, 10:15 AM   #188
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I'm not going to quibble with you Hank. Every time you claim to be unable to see partial erasures and broken character fragment, I am just going to post this, which you seem to have deleted

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png
ANd every time you make the assertion about *supposed* partial erasures and *supposed* broken character fragments, I'll point out it's simply your assertion, lacking any substance.

== quote ==
Why bother trying to actually prove anything when you can just assert it's true and forever-after beg that question?

You're doing it again, Robert.

"the broken character fragments and partially erased characters" is just unproven statements by you that are asserted but not established.

Did you examine the original envelope in the archives? Or did you just look at a photo of the envelope? If just a photo, what generation was it? And what did you do to eliminate photographic artifact?
== unqote ==

Please, Robert, do tell us what experts made the determination about these *supposed* "broken character fragments and partially erased characters" and when and where they examined the extant original in the National Archives.

Or do admit this is simply your interpretation of the image, and you have no background to draw the conclusions you draw. In other words, you're simply making it up as you go.

You can assert anything you wish. But don't expect us to accept everything you assert just because you assert it. That will never be persuasive to anyone who bases their conclusions upon *evidence*, not *unsupported assertions*.

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 10th September 2015, 10:35 AM   #189
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
The goal was never to frame a "lone-nut patsy".
Asserted but not proven. You know this based on what evidence?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
There was huge motivation by pretty much all of the main suspects, to connect the assassination to Castro, however.
Asserted but not proven. You know this based on what evidence?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And it almost worked. The DPD declared that the assassination was a communist conspiracy.
Initially, yes. And that was a logical conclusion to draw, given the suspect and the suspect's politics. But as evidence was developed, it turns out the guy was a loner. This isn't like a highly-coordinated event like 23 men hijacking airplanes and flying them into tall buildings. It's more like one man deciding to shoot up a Long Island Commuter train. Whatever influenced him is not the same as a conspiracy involving multiple people.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
The "lone nut" crap was the product of LBJ, who didn't want to have to deal with a public outcry, demanding that we declare war on Cuba, which could have led to a nuclear war.
An empty assertion lacking all substance and evidence in support.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Uh huh. And one guy with a Tommy gun probably could have pulled off the Valentine's day massacre.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
This crime was carried out by a handful of thugs.
Another empty assertion lacking all substance and evidence in support.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And based on the number of misses and poorly aimed shots, they were probably not the best. Perhaps Marcello told Ferrie to recruit people who could not be directly connected to him or were known to be top notch, mafia hitmen.
Again, you know all this how? You don't. You're simply asserting your conclusions as facts. That's not very convincing, and never will be.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It's pointless to second guess them.
Not trying to second-guess anyone. I'm trying to understand your logic in thinking a conspiracy would shoot from three locations to set up a war on Cuba and not leave a calling card behind like evidence pointing to a Cuban supporter like Oswald. It's your argument, for example, that the fragments pointing to Oswald and the bullet pointing to Oswald were substituted for the real fragments and the real bullet *that didn't point to Oswald*. You also argue that there's no evidence the shells were fired that day. But that makes no sense. Why wouldn't the conspirators use Oswald's real weapon and therefore have real shells left behind, and real fragments to find? Why rely on having to swap out the evidence later?

Your scenario needs some explaining, because it makes no sense as it currently stands.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Second guessing the killers is a poor substitute for addressing the fact that none of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone or that the 223 shot was heard by no one.
Back to the LOGICAL FALLACY of Begging the Question.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Nor is it a substitute for dealing with these reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
And there's the Begging the Question LOGICAL FALLACY once more.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What caused them Hank? Does the fact that they were being shot at at the time, give you a clue?
And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY of the Loaded Question.

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 10th September 2015, 11:23 AM   #190
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]Hearsay recollections from decades after the fact are better than, and take precedence over direct testimony made within a year of the event.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I never said that. And there is not "direct testimony" which contradicts the documented citations that I posed.
You never said it, but it's evident you practice it. You've cited and argued for decades-after-the-fact hearsay from Ellsworth to argue for a second weapon in the Depository, ignoring the direct testimony of others who testified and never mentioned any second weapon. You also cite and argue for decades-after-the-fact hearsay recollections from Connally, Wade, Nolan, and Doug Thompson, and ignore the original testimony, where available, of these same men that conflicts with the hearsay. And I did cite the direct testimony of Connally that conflicts with statements in the book you cite as accurate and in Connally's own words.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]All the hard evidence is falsified. Anything pointing to Oswald is especially suspicious.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I never said that either. As always, I go with the facts and evidence. Complaining that I dispute particular evidence, is a poor substitute for addressing that evidence.
Again, this argument follows from how you treat the hard evidence, based on nothing stronger than decades-after-the-fact hearsay. You wish to exclude the bullets, the shells, and the two large fragments all pointing to Oswald's rifle, because you don't like where it points. You've no evidence it was swapped or planted, but you argue it's illegitimate anyway, simply because you don't like that it points to Oswald. And I did address your *supposed* evidence, which is actually nothing more than decades-after-the-fact recollections and, in many cases, decades-after-the-fact recollections of hearsay. I've pointed out you have no evidence, and your insistence on calling it evidence still doesn't make it evidence.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]The FBI can't be trusted and are part of the coverup, unless they said something that sounds conspiratorial. Then it's automatically trustworthy.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
The FBI's stated agenda was to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone. That was direct from Hoover. It is ridiculously obvious that they carried out that agenda, which I suspect, is why you have failed to address a multitude of evidence proving exactly that.
Why don't you start, by telling us why Johnsen and Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399?
You haven't established Johnsen's and Todd's initials are not on CE399, so that's simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of Begging the Question once more. Why don't you start by showing how you know their initials are nowhere to be seen on CE399? Did you show each man CE399 and ask them to find their initials on it, for example? Otherwise, you are invoking the LOGICAL FALLACY of Shifting the Burden of Proof. It's your claim, therefore it's on you to prove it. No one needs to disprove it, which is what you're attempting to do above.

And you haven't shown that the FBI's stated agenda was to convince the public Oswald acted alone. You arrive there by ignoring the opening statement in a document written by Nicholas Katzenbach, and by ignoring his explanation to the HSCA about what he meant. This was all pointed out to you previously. You ignored all those points I (and others) made, and simply repeat your initial argument. Not. Very. Persuasive.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]Connally lied under oath but his testimony can still be quoted with no reservations to prove a conspiracy.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
How many more times are you going to repeat that blatantly false statement? Cite me verbatim, accusing him of lying under oath.
I've pointed out the conflict between his original testimony and the ghost-written book you cite, concerning whether he saw the President or not. It follows from your argument that the book is accurate and just Connally's words, that he therefore lied before both the Warren Commission and the HSCA - because his testimony differs from what's in the book!

This is a necessary consequence of your own arguments advanced here, as pointed out to you before, and as Jay Utah explained above.

Despite that consequence, you have in the past freely quoted Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission when it suited your purposes. You need to either stop quoting Connally's testimony (if you insist the ghost-written book is accurate in what words it attributes to Connally), or stop insisting the ghost-written book is accurate in what words it attributes to Connally, because it's been demonstrated both cannot be true.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]Assumptions are better than actually proving anything. Circular reasoning, begging the question, and other logical fallacies work too. Loaded questions are just dandy.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What a massive pile of deceitful crap.
Well, there's a well-reasoned, strongly supported rebuttal. Just call something a pile of crap.

Do you mind if I, in the future, respond to your arguments and point out when your arguments are "a massive pile of deceitful crap"?

I can pretty much guarantee it will get more tiresome for you than my pointing out you are utilizing hearsay and decades-after-the-fact recollections as evidence.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[*]Anything found on a conspiracy website can be cited freely, and doesn't have to be debated as to whether it's meaningful or not.
No response by Robert. Perhaps he thinks his "deceitful crap" response is sufficient. Or perhaps he doesn't dispute this, and thinks his citations to conspiracy theorist articles are sufficient to prove his points.

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 10th September 2015, 11:58 AM   #191
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
An Insight Into Robert's Shots

I used to have many run-ins with Robert back over at alt.assassination.jfk and generally refuse to engage with him anymore due to attacks he began to launch on my honest and integrity one time when I proved beyond all doubt that he had previously made a statement he apparently later regretted.

I've been quite content to just keep watching him get destroyed over here, so I am not joining the fray, nor will I revisit dozens of debates I've already had with him over there. Nevertheless, when I see Robert sounding vague on the number of shots he actually believes in over here I must chime in. Over there and in his videos, he has very clearly spelled out at least 6 (six) shots that he believes in:

1) A supposed silencer-suppressed shot from Dal-Tex around Z130-133 if my recollection of the exact timing is correct. (Source: Apparently Braden.)

2) A medium-loud shot at or near Z160. (Source: Oswald?)

3) Another silencer suppressed shot from Dal-Tex that wounded both JFK and Connally at Z223/224 time frame. (Source: Apparently Braden.)

4) A loud shot at Z285 that missed. (Source: Oswald or someone else?)

5) The fatal head shot at Z312/313. (Source: Oswald or someone else?)

6) A pistol shot from a storm drain at about Z319 that with lottery-winning luck managed to strike JFK's already shattered skull a split second after 5). Lottery luck referring to the fact that tests have shown only a very tiny window such a shooter would have had in the first place to even make such a shot + what are the odds JFK's head still being in position to be hit again at all only 1/3 of a second after his head literally exploded from the fatal blow? (Source: I have no clue and he doesn't seem speculate or say.)

So I can say with great confidence Bob has at least 6 shots from at least 4 different users, using at least 3 or 4 different weapons in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63. Apparently, it was bring in the whole Mafia hit gang and let 'em shoot up JFK with whatever their ordinance of choice happened to be. ...Which he naturally believes was successfully hung on one lone participant to the plot (LHO).

Brock T. George (BT George)
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 10th September 2015, 12:56 PM   #192
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
None of the doctors claimed to have removed a bullet from Connally's leg, for the obvious reason, that it fell to the floor before he went into surgery.. duh.
Do you have any contemporaneous testimony from anyone concerning this supposed extra bullet? To date all you've cited is recollections from nearly 30 years (or more) after the fact. Nothing contemporaneous has been provided to substantiate the hearsay & recollections you're providing here.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why do you understate my analysis? Why are you pretending that Nolan was the only one who corroborated Connally?
As I already noted:

The Thompson story, published more than a decade after Connally's death, is a 24-year after the fact recollection of hearsay.

The Nolan claim about what was in the envelope, is a 49-year after the fact recollection of hearsay.

The Wade claim about a bullet is a 30-year after the fact recollection, and the source you cite, a newspaper article, is hearsay.

The Connally claims from the book you cite is hearsay.


I'm not pretending Nolan's claim is the only one here. I am pointing out that you are repeatedly relying on recollections from 15, 30, or even 49[!] years after the event to prove your case, and in some cases, it's decades-later recollections of hearsay (like with Nolan, who when you interviewed him in 2012 never said he saw a bullet, but was only told about one).

49-year-later recollections of hearsay aren't evidence. Heck, Robert, even same-day recollections of hearsay aren't evidence.

But curiously, decades-after-the-fact recollections and hearsay are all you have for this supposed second Parkland Hospital bullet. Not a shred of evidence anywhere we look.

No matter how many times you repeat the claims, and no matter how many times you argue this is "rock-solid" or "gold-plated" evidence, it never will be.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I might as well just grab a witness or two, from out by the dumpster, eh:-)
That's essentially what you've already done with the ghost-written book quotes of Connally's recollections from nearly three- ecades after the fact, Wade's hearsay recollections from three decades after the fact, Nolan's nearly FIVE decades later recollection of hearsay, Ellsworth's three decades later recollection of hearsay, etc.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Now tell us about your witnesses and evidence which proves that this long list of inconvenient witnesses are liars.
A LOGICAL FALLACY known as shifting the Burden of Proof. I need not prove anything. The burden is on you to establish that your collection of hearsay, recollections, and recollections of hearsay from decades after the fact is, in fact, evidence. You haven't done that, and asking me to disprove your claims doesn't accomplish it either.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I threw out NOTHING. Prove that Oswald, or anyone for that matter, fired those three shells that day, and then we can talk about it.
So you are throwing out the shells. And the nearly whole bullet recovered at Parkland. And the two fragments from the limo. For an example, look no further than your arguments immediately above and again below:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
As for the fragments allegedly found in the limo, they might have been the result of a shot by Oswald. But to accept their validity, we do have to put a lot of trust in Mr. Hoover's organization, which based on the evidence is much like trusting OJ's testimony.
And of course, your argument that there is a need to establish that the shells were fired on 11/22/63 is bizarre beyond belief, as there is NO ballistics test known to man that can establish *when* a particular shell was fired. So you are asking for evidence you know doesn't exist, and saying you won't be convinced otherwise minus that non-existent evidence. That's sophism.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I follow the facts and evidence Hank.
Then why is so much of your "evidence" is (as you've already admitted) hearsay? Why is so much of your "evidence" decades-later recollections? Why is it your "facts" are often just your assertions of your interpretations?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Let's cut to the chase, Hank.

If ONLY Wade made the statement he did, or only Connally, or only Nolan, or only Stinson or only Bell, you might have a case that ONE witness was a liar or suffered some kind of delusion.

But there are too many, saying the same thing. Consider just Wade and Nolan. Do you REALLY think that they both suffered some kind of delusion, thinking the nurse told them she had a whole bullet, from Connally's "gurney"??
Please provide the sworn testimony of even one witness who mentioned this supposed bullet before 1993 - the 30th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Absent that, you don't have any evidence of this bullet.

You have "recollections". "Stories". And of course, plenty of hearsay. No evidence.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
"And EVERYTHING Bell said in her testimonies with the HSCA and ARRB, proves BRD, that she was not the nurse who Connally, Wade, Nolan and Stinson encountered, and she was NOT the nurse who passed her evidence envelope to Nolan.
So your argument is that there were TWO envelopes, provided by TWO different nurses, one containing a bullet and another containing fragments?

And you have no actual testimony from anyone on these pieces of evidence? Just some recollections from decades later? Just some recollections of hearsay? And just something that you *think* is altered markings on an envelope?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Look at CE-842, Hank. You don't have to be a crazed conspiracy theorist to be suspicious of all the partial erasures and character fragments. And where are Bell's initials?

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png

I guess they must be in the same place that SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd's are
Your assertions about these "partial erasures and character fragments" are not evidence, Robert. You don't have any evidence of these assertions.

I remind you that you noted previously that Cortland Cunningham didn't initial evidence with "CC", but used two other initials instead. What did Bell use, and where's an example of her using that? Your argument above, asking us to point out Bell initials, is again the LOGICAL FALLACY of a Shifting of the Burden of Proof. You want to assert her initials are not there, it's incumbent on you to prove that. It's not incumbent on anyone else to disprove your claims.


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 10th September 2015, 01:40 PM   #193
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
But everyone CAN see what I see. Notice also, that many of the partially erased characters reside in in a dark smudge at the bottom-center of the envelope. That is exactly what we should expect when there as been a lot of erasure. That would never have been there if this had been a clean, previously unused envelope.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce-842annotated.png

Also notice the various line segments which are not at all, subtle and are entirely independent from any of the sets of initials.
I don't see anything that can positively be established to be "partially erased characters," nor any "line segments." I see Nolan has a fancy way with his capital "B," but nothing that I haven't seen before, that the pen skipped at a certain point on the page, maybe he added a period. I see where you have circled the places where you discern partially erased "F"s and are quite clearly nothing of the kind, as they look just like other shadows in the wrinkled paper that you did not circle.
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 September 2015, 02:57 PM   #194
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It is a ridiculously lame excuse to claim that they cannot support their attacks because my articles are too long.
Straw man; that's not what I claimed.

I did not say your articles were "too long." Instead I said that in many cases what is presented as an appropriately elaborate treatment in your writings may be accurately, fairly, and succinctly summarized for reference by your critics in a sentence or two. Paraphrasing is acceptable practice no matter the length of the source. Don't think I'm accusing you of being unnecessarily long-winded. The momentum and flow of a debate makes summaries and paraphrases desirable.

In fact you have just done it yourself in this post, ostensibly to boil down my post to what you considered its essential elements using a couple of sentences: you quoted one sentence from my post and then summarized the rest of it in your own words: "It is a ridiculously lame excuse to claim that they cannot support their attacks because my articles are too long." Those are your words, not mine, and they are apparently meant to express in one sentence what I originally expressed in several paragraphs.

Naturally a paraphrase from your critics is not "verbatim" what you claimed, just as your restatements above aren't my words.1 But you don't get to claim misrepresentation solely because you were paraphrased, and you don't get to categorically ignore paraphrases.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with the length of my articles, since my accusers only have to cite the relevant passage.
Asked and answered.

"The relevant passage" as you wrote it may extend to several paragraphs wherein you lay out a line of reasoning. We may accurately summarize that line of reasoning in a sentence or two for the purposes of referring to it in a debate.

Perhaps an example will suffice. You referred us to your essay on polygraph results in which you discussed the analysis of it by expert witness. You drew the conclusion that the experts were, in part, lying or mistaken and that the results should be interpreted the way you set forth in your essay. I can summarize your argument as I have in a couple of sentences, but to quote it "verbatim" would mean quoting practically the bulk of the essay.

Now if that summary were materially deficient in some way -- say, lacking a key premise or misstating the reasoning -- then you would have cause to complain. But sidestepping it simply because it is a summary is a disingenuous argument.

Then there is the matter of inevitable consequents, which you didn't choose to address. They are a part of testing your argument, whether you like it or not. In those cases there are no "relevant passages" to quote, but you are still accountable for them.

Quote:
The reason that some of the more radical of my opponents make accusations that they cannot support, is that they lied. It really is just that simple.
No, it's not that simple. When rebutted, you rejoin by setting a vexatious task for your critics. You then attribute critics' reluctance to undertake it to their nefarious intent. The reader is meant to believe that a critic who rebuffs your demand for production does so because he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on. This insinuation begs the question of the validity of the task when the task is arguably pedantic. That impression is undermined when you ignore queries that do supply verbatim quotes. The reader then gets the impression that while you say you reject rebuttals because they don't quote you "verbatim," the real reason is different. Hence why I say this "quote me verbatim" deflection has become irksome.

If you insist that critics must be lying, then you should be able to succinctly cite the "relevant passage" in your own writings that refutes the accusation. That would prove your counter-accusation.

_____________________
1 Or even my ideas. The concept "support their attacks" is not part of my claim. It's not necessarily an "attack," for example, to ask you to justify what appears to be inconsistent treatment of evidence. That's just ordinary debate. The concept "too long" is not part of my claim. I don't claim your articles are longer than they need to be. Instead I say simply that they can be paraphrased or summarized without loss of rigor.
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 September 2015, 03:59 PM   #195
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
The word 'liar' is getting tossed around a lot. I think it is being misused. It is not a synonym for 'inaccurate'. There reasons to doubt claims and statements without thinking that the person was lying:

*Human memory is not a film. It is subject to confusion, panic, and it is mutable. This is not lying.

*Human memory grows less accurate with time. People 'remember' details learned later, and the memory can change depending on the narrative the person has told themselves. These are not lies. They are honest mis-recollections.

* A book is not subject to the scrutiny and control of a sworn testimony. There is no threat of being held in contempt of court, or criminal charges for false testimony to a book. Showing it is less useful as evidence (when testimony is already flawed evidence) is not an accusation of a lie.

* A book that was co-authored, and published after the death of the witness can not be attributed as his words. We do not know, and can not establish, how much, if any, of the book WAS his words directly. We do not know how much was paraphrased, or direct quotes. We can not state how much was misunderstood by the co-author, or by the editor, or misrepresented. It could be a true and honest report, but, and this is the point, we can show it to be. It is the words of one man, reported by another. It is hearsay. Pointing out this limits the use of the text as evidence is not an accusation of a lie.
Of course I never accused anyone of lying. I have pointed out repeatedly that hearsay is not evidence, that recollections from 30-years-after-the-fact are not evidence, and that recollections of hearsay from 49-years-after-the-fact are not evidence either. Neither are newspaper accounts or accounts published in a ghost-written autobiography. All of the previous is what Robert has utilized as "evidence" to argue for a second bullet found in Parkland.

But it's clear none of it is evidence and really can't be used to establish anything.

It's also clear that Robert can't salvage his claims, so he's repeatedly misrepresenting mine. He keeps telling me that Connally isn't a liar, Hershkowitz isn't a liar, Wade isn't a liar, Nolan isn't a liar, and I need to prove otherwise, but I never said that about any of them.

This post shows exactly what I said and how Robert created strawman rebuttals, not arguing the points I did advance at all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=175

As does this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=182

In the one immediately above, I retained both my point and Robert's response. Anyone can see there is no relationship between the two.

And of course, Robert is doing it still:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=185

And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=187

He's still repeating the strawman argument that I'm calling these men liars, and failing to address the points I do make. I clarified it a number of times, and at this point I'm at a loss as to how to respond. I suppose I should repeat my points yet again, while he continues to ignore my points.

Is that the best approach here?

Your advice is solicited.

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 10th September 2015, 04:32 PM   #196
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Please note this testimony of John Connally's, cited previously in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=179

Note especially the last sentence quoted.

Governor Connally: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back...
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.


Once again, for emphasis: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

Since Connally only heard two shots and believed there was only three, he is saying he never saw the President during the shooting, as he didn't see him after the first shot, he didn't see him after the second shot, and he didn't see him after the third shot.


Now let's quote Robert Harris and what Robert says about what Connally says in his response to my post cited above:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=187

Note in the above he does not quote Connally's testimony I provided fully in his response, and in fact omits Connally's admission he never saw JFK during the shooting. He then goes on to argue:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
He was referring to the his turn to the right BEFORE he was hit, wasn't he? And we can easily see that he was correct. He didn't turn far enough to see JFK then. It was only AFTER he was hit that he turned back far enough to see JFK.
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots. You repeat this assertion a number of times, but Connally said he never saw JFK.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes, and looking at him later in the film, it is obvious that he did [see JFK clutch at his throat].
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
He didn't turn far enough to see JFK immediately following 160 and he DID turn far enough, by about frame 274.
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hank, I really want to believe that you just didn't comprehend what Connally said and what he did, but I already demonstrated for you that Connally looked back at JFK, later in the film. Were you just hoping that I wouldn't notice your attempt to change the sequence that Connally described?
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Connally ONLY stated that he didn't see JFK when he turned to his right, following that first shot, which was prior to him (Connally) getting hit.
PLEASE stop misrepresenting him.
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Of course they can, and they were. Connally was never known to be a liar, and you have no right to accuse him of that. The Zapruder film proves that he was right about not seeing JFK prior to 223, and right about looking back at JFK later.
The witness disagrees with your assertion, Robert. He says he never saw JFK after any of the shots.

Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.



And finally, this assertion by Robert:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It's one thing to constantly misrepresent me, but you shouldn't misrepresent the most important witnesses, Hank.
Once again: I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

Connally said in his testimony that he never saw JFK during the shooting. He says in the Hershkowitz book he saw JFK clutch at his throat during the shooting. Only one of those can be true, Robert. Which one is it?

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 10th September 2015, 04:40 PM   #197
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
I used to have many run-ins with Robert back over at alt.assassination.jfk and generally refuse to engage with him anymore due to attacks he began to launch on my honest and integrity one time when I proved beyond all doubt that he had previously made a statement he apparently later regretted.

I've been quite content to just keep watching him get destroyed over here, so I am not joining the fray, nor will I revisit dozens of debates I've already had with him over there. Nevertheless, when I see Robert sounding vague on the number of shots he actually believes in over here I must chime in. Over there and in his videos, he has very clearly spelled out at least 6 (six) shots that he believes in:

1) A supposed silencer-suppressed shot from Dal-Tex around Z130-133 if my recollection of the exact timing is correct. (Source: Apparently Braden.)

2) A medium-loud shot at or near Z160. (Source: Oswald?)

3) Another silencer suppressed shot from Dal-Tex that wounded both JFK and Connally at Z223/224 time frame. (Source: Apparently Braden.)

4) A loud shot at Z285 that missed. (Source: Oswald or someone else?)

5) The fatal head shot at Z312/313. (Source: Oswald or someone else?)

6) A pistol shot from a storm drain at about Z319 that with lottery-winning luck managed to strike JFK's already shattered skull a split second after 5). Lottery luck referring to the fact that tests have shown only a very tiny window such a shooter would have had in the first place to even make such a shot + what are the odds JFK's head still being in position to be hit again at all only 1/3 of a second after his head literally exploded from the fatal blow? (Source: I have no clue and he doesn't seem speculate or say.)

So I can say with great confidence Bob has at least 6 shots from at least 4 different users, using at least 3 or 4 different weapons in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63. Apparently, it was bring in the whole Mafia hit gang and let 'em shoot up JFK with whatever their ordinance of choice happened to be. ...Which he naturally believes was successfully hung on one lone participant to the plot (LHO).

Brock T. George (BT George)
Yeah, he's alluded to all those plus one more, as he once referenced, in speaking of the shots, "the ones after 313" (note the plural).

So I count those sixth you specify, plus a seventh shot. Robert earlier in the prior thread referenced a possible shot in the Z335 range (I forget the actual frame), so that's the seventh shot according to various posts of Robert Harris.

When you say "source" in the above (and it took me a while to figure out what you meant), you meant the shooter, rather than the testimony or statements of people who provided evidence Robert is citing.

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 10th September 2015, 04:58 PM   #198
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Do you have any contemporaneous testimony from anyone concerning this supposed extra bullet? To date all you've cited is recollections from nearly 30 years (or more) after the fact. Nothing contemporaneous has been provided to substantiate the hearsay & recollections you're providing here.
Stop wasting my time by regurgitating ridiculous arguments that I have refuted over and over and over again.

Pretending that these men just fabricated false stories because the assassination occurred a long time ago, is ridiculous. And the notion that Wade and Nolan suffered identical delusions, thinking they were told that the nurse held a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney" is even more ridiculous.

And the notion that they just coincidentally fabricated memories that MATCHED PERFECTLY WITH CONNALLY'S RECOLLECTION takes you to an all new level of preposterous.

I can remember 11/22/63 quite well and I absolutely assure you that none of my memories are delusions. I seriously doubt that you or anyone else in this newsgroup who is not being treated for mental problems suffered delusions either.

I don't think you believe for a millisecond that those men told false stories because the events occurred thirty years earlier. Bobby Nolan never ran into Stinson before or after that day, and yet, when I interviewed him nearly 50 years after, he almost remembered the guy's name perfectly.

But the clincher, which you never want to talk about is the the consistency of their recollection of a totally unintuitive fact, that the bullet came from Connally's "gurney", which matches perfectly with Connally's story.

And you really need to get a grasp on reality when it comes to your favorite buzzword - "hearsay". Every newspaper article you ever read, is "hearsay". Every magazine article, every Encyclopedia article, every dictionary, is nothing but "hearsay".

It doesn't matter that an article or book is "hearsay". What matters, in fact ALL that matters is whether or not it is true.

District Attorney Wade, officer Nolan and John Connally all told the truth about these issues. We can be certain about that because each of their independent statements matched perfectly with the others.

And isn't it an amazing coincidence, that nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell, just happened to deny the FBI's claim that she passed her envelope to officer Nolan? If she hadn't done that, you might still have had some kind of defense. Ain't I lucky that she just coincidentally came to the rescue:-)

All of the witnesses contradict you, Hank - the governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney, officer Nolan and nursing supervisor Bell.

They are not the ones who are full of crap, Hank. We both know who that is.
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 September 2015, 05:12 PM   #199
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
I used to have many run-ins with Robert back over at alt.assassination.jfk and generally refuse to engage with him anymore due to attacks he began to launch on my honest and integrity one time when I proved beyond all doubt that he had previously made a statement he apparently later regretted.
Yes of course, the moderator there, John McAdams and I are BFF:-)

You'll have no problem finding allies around here, I'm sure. But these guys have heard my analysis ad nauseum, to the point where your misrepresentations aren't going to make it off the launchpad.

But since you're so eager to jump into the fray, why don't you share with the forum, you're opinion about the cause of these reactions?

So far, "Greer slamming on the brakes" and "Oswald fired both", seem to have fallen by the wayside. Tell us about your theory, Brock.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

You also claimed in A.A.JFK that I have been repeatedly refuted on the 285 shot. I think the folks around here, would be delighted, practically out of their minds, to hear about a few of them.

Why don't you tell them, my friend?
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 September 2015, 05:41 PM   #200
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,932
Hi Robert,

You named Jim Braden as a suspect when you first appeared here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1666

"As to who Oswald's accomplices were, I do not have a list of names for you, although I am extremely suspicious of James Braden, who was on the third floor of the Daltex building, had connections with David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination, and was at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination."

You seem reticent to defend that claim, as I've asked ten times for your evidence, and you have yet to respond.

So let's start small.

I'll post some evidence indicating Oswald was involved in the assassination, and you post some evidence Braden was involved in the assassination.

Oswald's rifle was found in the Depository after the shooting.

See J.C.Day's testimony here:

Mr. DAY. At that time I was summoned to the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I met Captain Fritz. He wanted photographs of the rifle before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if Captain Fritz told you that the rifle had not been moved?
Mr. DAY. He told me he wanted photographs before it was moved, if I remember correctly. He definitely told me it had not been moved, and the reason for the photographs he wanted it photographed before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what the reporter has marked or what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 718, and ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is a photograph made by me of the rifle where it was found in the northwest portion of the sixth floor, 411 Elm Street, Dallas.
...
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
...
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any recollection as to what the serial number was of that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I recorded it at the time, C--2566.
Mr. BELIN. Before you say that----
Mr. DAY. C-2766, excuse me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"

With me so far? A rifle is recovered in the Depository, and it bears the serial number of C2766.

Now, whose rifle was it?

Let's move on to the testimony of William Waldman, the vice-president of Klein's sporting goods.

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, were you ever contacted by any law enforcement agency about the disposition of this Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that had the serial number C-2766 on it?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; on the night of November 22, 1963, the FBI contacted our company in an effort to determine whether the gun had been in our possession and, if so, what disposition we had made of it.
...
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.

So that rifle bearing the serial number of C2766 was shipped to PO Box 2915.
Still with me?

Now let's look at Harry Holmes testimony. Holmes was a Postal Inspector in the Dallas Post Office. He testified:

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 3," and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. That is a photostatic copy of the original box rental application covering the rental of box 2915, at the main post office in Dallas, Tex. which shows that it was completed on October the 9th, 1962. The applicants name was Lee H. Oswald, home address, 3519 Fairmore Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Signed Lee H. Oswald. It shows that the box was closed on May 14, 1963.

So that rifle bearing the serial number of C2766 was shipped to PO Box 2915, owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, what equivalent evidence do you have that Braden was involved in the assassination?

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
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 04:37 AM.
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.