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 16th September 2015, 07:36 AM   #281
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Seems your question should be: "Why didn't the witnesses hear only one early shot?"
Oops.
Excuse me, I meant:
Seems your question should be: "Why did the witnesses hear only one early shot?"

(Can't edit in a moderated thread, darn it.)
Sandy McCroskey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2015, 12:01 PM   #282
Bubba
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,348
Who knew?

Three days after John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, U.S. intelligence officials told President Lyndon B. Johnson that they had confirmed that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had recently traveled to Mexico City to visit both the Cuban and Soviet embassies, according to a half-century old briefing memo declassified on Wednesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-soviets-befo/
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2015, 09:38 PM   #283
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
He stated that the bullet strike felt like somebody punched him in the back. There was no reason why he wouldn't have heard that shot.
Yes, one big one - HE GOT SHOT BY A HIGH POWERED RIFLE. That is a big deal, just ask JFK. The second the bullet tore into him his body went into shock. That means the five senses went bye-bye.

He heard the first shot, which you ignore. He is seen to turn his head when Oswald shoots.

Quote:
Consider the fact that Nellie didn't hear it either. She heard one shot, looked back at JFK at 258 and after that, heard the "second shot" which she thought, wounded her husband. We can easily see her react to that shot as she described in her WC testimony.
So we're clear, this woman is suddenly in a car filling with blood, bone fragments, and brain tissue. She experienced the other kind of shock, which is often more powerful. What she heard and what she REMEMBERS hearing are likely two different things.

Quote:
And all throughout Dealey Plaza, "most" of the relevant witnesses said they heard only one early shots and no others until the very end.
"Relevant" meaning witnesses you've cherry-picked to fit your failing theory. Some only heard one, the rest heard three. The only witnesses who matter, Jarman and Norman, who were directly below Oswald on the 5th floor. They heard all three shots, and the bolt cycling each time.

There are also multiple witnesses who claim one of the Dallas policemen road their motorcycles up onto the grassy knoll, swear to it in great detail, and yet this didn't happen. That's why eye-witness testimony always takes a back seat to the physical evidence.

Quote:
John Connally just heard the same thing the others did.
I doubt it. More importantly, all Connally heard was the first shot. We know this because we can all see him turn around (that involuntary reflex you talk about). The second shot hit him before the sound reached the car, and by then he was in shock. What Connally says he heard or remembers is immaterial.
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 17th September 2015, 03:12 AM   #284
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,088
So, now we are stuck in an infinite loop. We keep explaining to one person why we are not convinced by his theory, and what we require to be convinced.

Robert, please do not keep insisting you have proven anything. You are not the one who best knows when we have been convinced. We are.

Please supply physical evidence for the silenced shots.

Don't complain that is 'only one kind' of evidence. We will accept any physical evidence. That is a multitude of options. If you want us to believe there was any shooter other than, or as well as, Oswald, this is where you start.
__________________
@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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2015, 07:29 PM   #285
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
There has been a great deal of confusion regarding hearsay. As a lawyer, let me try to clear that up.

Hearsay is any out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is a legal concept and has no actual meaning outside of a courtroom setting.
We are not in a courtroom or a debate tournament. History is about determining the reality of what happened. Sometimes it's better to think like an investigator or a cop, than a lawyer.

Trying to dismiss an interview in the Dallas Morning News or a verbatim statement in a man's own autobiography by calling it "hearsay", insults the intelligence. It is a poor substitute for honest discourse.

The infinitely better way to get to the truth is to look for corroborations or contradictions.

Bobby Nolan provided a conclusive corroboration in our recorded interview, which therefore, is NOT hearsay. Furthermore, he told me that he had never spoken to Wade or Connally, and had never read Connally's book or Wade's interview. He heard EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT WADE DID.

And both he and Nolan corroborated Connally's story.

This also explains why Bill Stinson, who was talking with Nolan at the time, mistakenly thought that the Connally bullet was recovered from surgery, as he stated in a 1967 interview with Ramparts magazine. Remember, he was the guy who told the nurse to give the bullet to Nolan.

Quote:
Many of the things you list above, such as encyclopedias, may fall under exceptions to the hearsay rule.
I'm sorry, but I am infinitely more interested in the facts and evidence than I am about ambiguous rules. Why aren't you talking about specifics?

Quote:
What you people
WHOA!!!

Who exactly, are "you people"???

You mean I presume, the people who disagree with you, , right?

Quote:
are actually talking about is the concept in historiography of sources. Each type of source has its own problems. Primary contemporanious sources are thought to be the best because they happen when memory is freshest or simply as an unthinking reaction to events. One must be careful of the worm's eye effect.
What is "best", is statements that can be corroborated - by other, independent witnesses and by the evidence. By "evidence", in this case, the absence of the initials on CE399, by the men at Parkland who put their initials on the original, Tomlinson bullet.

Quote:
Primary sources created after the fact may be significantly corrupted by the variability of memory.
It's one thing to forget things that happened years ago, but it's quite another to be deluded to the point where someone fabricates a detailed, specific conversation, including other delusions like seeing the nurse holding a whole bullet in her hand, or in Connally's case, seeing her retrieve that bullet from the floor.

That kind of thing just doesn't happen, at least among people who do not suffer from serious mental problems.

And the notion that all three of them would suffer nearly identical delusions is too implausible to be considered.

Quote:
Writing years later, a native american woman said she saw a man with long blond hair being helped on the battlefield late into Custer's last stand.
And what is your source for that??

Did this Sioux lady, write the article in English??

Or was it "hearsay"??

I guess this hearsay thing only applies to people who disagree with you, eh

Quote:
This cannot be true. Custer had cut his hair short just before the battle.
And assuming this "hearsay" is true, did you confirm that there were no other soldiers with long blond hair, fighting that day?

You see, it always comes down to the details, doesn't it?

Sweeping generalizations don't cut it. All that matters is whether a statement is true or not. In this forum, the term "hearsay", has been horrible abused, and used as a way to evade the facts.

Quote:
Secondary sources start to become very problematic.

One must first account for all of the problems of perception and memory of the primary source and then add into it all of the problems of perception (did our reporter hear right) and memory (does he remember what was said) of the source.
Interviews like the one conducted by the DMN are always recorded, for accuracy.

And as you know all too well, Bobby Nolan corroborated Wade almost word for word.

Why are you making silly arguments like this?

Quote:
Added to that are the biases of the reporter.
No, that isn't "added" to anything. Accusing the Dallas Morning News of lying about what Wade said in that interview is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from 9/11 "truthers" or the very worst of the JFK CTs.

It is also as bad as claiming that John Connally or Mickey Herkowitz, lied in Connally's autobiography.

These three men were mutually corroborative. And they were further corroborated by Bill Stinson and Parkland nursing supervisor, Bell.

Quote:
Witness, for example, the complete lunacy of the earliest news stories on 9/11. A car bomb had gone off at the State Department? There were Jers "dancing in the street" in New Jersey?
What a ridiculous comparison. How can you compare the chaos of 9/11, with a formal, recorded interview? And did you consider that Mr. Wade would probably have thrown a fit, if they lied about what he said? He lived in Dallas and undoubtedly, read the interview when it was published.

It's just preposterous to accuse all of these people of lying and/or suffering from delusions. Isn't it enough that Hank has accused most of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza of being "confused" or delusional?

I can't wait to hear what you guys concoct to 'splain away Bell and Stinson.

Have you worked up something yet, for Secret Service agent, Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, who initialed the Tomlinson bullet, but whose initials are nowhere on CE399?

FBI agent Todd, BTW, testified before the WC, not only that he initialed the bullet, but that he saw his initials on CE399. Too bad he was on your side, eh? You would have had a witness, who really was a liar

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.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 18th September 2015, 08:56 AM   #286
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Henry Wade:

Let's review his statement, made to the Dallas Morning News:

I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet.


There are two important assertions here, his claim that the nurse was holding a whole bullet in her hand, something he could not have known if he hadn't seen it (he didn't say "envelope", or that she said she was holding a bullet) and his claim that she told him the bullet came from Connally's "gurney".

Attempts to refute him, have without exception, failed to address the fact that Officer Nolan corroborated those inconvenient statements, almost word for word. This single sentence did the job.

"And she came up and told him (Stinson) that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney. "

Notice BTW, that she was simply carrying out Wade's instructions, to give the bullet to the police.

According to Nolan, he had never spoken to Connally or Wade and had never been exposed to any literature in which any of this was mentioned.

Bill Stinson further corroborated the other three men, when he told Ramparts magazine in 1967,

The last thing they did, was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him.

There is no doubt, that he got this from the same nurse the others mentioned, because he told her to, "give it to him", pointing at Nolan.

He obviously, didn't hear the nurse refer to the "gurney", or he did, but rejected her claim, thinking that it must have been recovered in surgery.

The devil is in the details, gentlemen. It is NOT, in ambiguous, sweeping generalizations or artificial rules, all of which are trumped in this case, by the corroborations.
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 20th September 2015, 07:07 PM   #287
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
It appears, Bob, that you missed Hank's explanation, very patiently provided, of what the other assumptions are that make your question a loaded one.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I didn't ask him about "assumptions". I asked him,

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

I didn't say you asked Hank about assumptions. I said that Hank explained what assumptions you were making in formulating a loaded question.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Hank does not evade that question because of any screwball "assumptions". He evades it because there is only one plausible answer, and that answer puts an end to this debate.
In your mind, Bob.
Not in anyone else's.

Last edited by Agatha; 29th September 2015 at 04:45 AM. Reason: properly fix quote tags!
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 20th September 2015, 07:21 PM   #288
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
There has been a great deal of confusion regarding hearsay. As a lawyer, let me try to clear that up.

Hearsay is any out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is a legal concept and has no actual meaning outside of a courtroom setting. Many of the things you list above, such as encyclopedias, may fall under exceptions to the hearsay rule.What you people
WHOA!!!

Who exactly, are "you people"???

You mean I presume, the people who disagree with you, , right?
Actually, no, he means everyone here who has been tossing the term around. You are imagining a pejorative connotation to "you people."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
are actually talking about is the concept in historiography of sources.
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 20th September 2015, 07:31 PM   #289
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Bob, nobody has accused you of not being sincere in your convictions. I don't know why you can't extend others the same courtesy.
Then you haven't been paying attention to the discussion.
Wrong.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Hank refused to answer my question about why most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots, by claiming it was "loaded", suggesting that I had not refuted his "theory" that there was no shot prior to 223.
"Refused to answer"? But you already know that Hank thinks most witnesses heard only one early shot simply because there was only one early shot. He is not convinced by your supposed "refutation"; nor am I. It is based on nothing but your own highly idiosyncratic interpretation of a few selected frames of the Zapruder film. I daresay you are the only person so convinced. Maybe this is the reason you can get away with calling him dishonest here: no one is going to believe the allegation.

Hank pointed out (much more usefully) that your question is loaded, and he explained why, and not for the first time.

Yet somehow you have still failed to grasp that.
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 20th September 2015, 07:35 PM   #290
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Jay was describing how evidence is evaluated in a court of law, a procedure that is far from nonsensical, as I hope you will agree.
Do you think these folks were startled by something, Sandy?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
Hi, Mr. Harris. Allow me to introduce myself. I, Sandy McCroskey, am the same person who wrote this earlier in this same thread (on this same page):

As there is no proof that the limo passengers were exhibiting startle reactions to a single stimulus, let alone the specific stimulus you allege, at either of those points in the Zapruder film, there is therefore nothing that requires explaining in the perceived absence of such supposed "reactions" at any other point in the Zapruder film.
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 20th September 2015, 11:14 PM   #291
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So, now we are stuck in an infinite loop
What do you think was the cause of these reactions, Tom?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Why don't we see anything like that, following the early shots?
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 21st September 2015, 12:06 AM   #292
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Yes, one big one - HE GOT SHOT BY A HIGH POWERED RIFLE.
You waste bandwidth, posting unsupported assertions. The simple fact is, that if JFK and Connally were hit at 223 by a shot from a high powered rifle, everyone would have heard it, and we would have seen reactions among the other limo passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Quote:
That is a big deal, just ask JFK. The second the bullet tore into him his body went into shock.
The bullet struck next to vertebrae which housed nerves that connected to the elbow sensors and other parts of the arm. That's why his arms rose. He was never reaching for his throat and his hands never came close to his throat.

But the nerve stimulation did not require a high velocity bullet. A .22 caliber weapon or an ice pick could have done the job just as well.

Quote:
He heard the first shot, which you ignore. He is seen to turn his head when Oswald shoots.
Yes, that's why I only mentioned that Connally heard the shot at 160, about a half dozen times:-)

Quote:
So we're clear, this woman is suddenly in a car filling with blood, bone fragments, and brain tissue. She experienced the other kind of shock, which is often more powerful. What she heard and what she REMEMBERS hearing are likely two different things.
She never heard anything that she even realized was a gunshot, prior to 285. And this could not be a failure of memory, because we can see precisely when she reacted to the shot that she believed, wounded her husband. You can see it too. For her to be wrong, she would have had to suffer a delusion, hearing a nonexistent shot and then reacting to it.

You tell me. In what frame did she snap back toward her husband and pull him back to her, as she testified?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

And what were the folk around her doing at the same time?

Quote:
"Relevant" meaning witnesses you've cherry-picked to fit your failing theory.
"relevant" refers to witnesses who made statements about the spacing of the shots.

And if you think I am "cherry picking", you need to take it up with the Warren Commission. This is what they concluded,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

Quote:
Some only heard one, the rest heard three. The only witnesses who matter, Jarman and Norman, who were directly below Oswald on the 5th floor. They heard all three shots, and the bolt cycling each time.
Not on this planet, my friend.

Representative FORD. Where did you think the sound of the first shot came
from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN. Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below.
That is what I thought.
Representative FORD. As you looked out the window and you were looking at
the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the
sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN. I am sure it came from the left.
Representative FORD. But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.


From the sixth floor of the depository, what is below and to the left of the window they were in? That's right, the third floor of the Daltex building. Amazing coincidence, eh

Williams, who was also with them, said

first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking he heard a motorcycle on the sixth floor. Norman is the only one who said all three shots came from the sixth floor, but he was by far, the flakiest of the three witnesses, repeatedly contradicting his own statements to the FBI.

What they all did say however, is that two of the shots really did come from the 6th floor, which is why I have always contended that the two, high powered rifle shots came from there. But one of them had to have come from someone other than Oswald, because they were much too close together for him to have fired both.

Quote:
There are also multiple witnesses who claim one of the Dallas policemen road their motorcycles up onto the grassy knoll, swear to it in great detail, and yet this didn't happen. That's why eye-witness testimony always takes a back seat to the physical evidence.
I don't recall hearing more than one witness who said that. Would you mind citing a couple?

Of course, out of nearly two hundred witnesses, there are bound to be a few screwball stories, which is why we only go for the ones who are corroborated - by other witnesses and other verifiable facts.

Besides the general population of the witnesses, the limo passengers said the same thing. In fact, NONE of them testified to hearing more than a single, early shot. (ask me to prove that).

They were also corroborated by Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, who confirmed a loud and startling noise at 285. It's true that Alvarez suggested that it might have been a siren, but with the benefit of a lot more evidence, we know that isn't true. In fact, these same witnesses told us exactly what they were hearing at the time, and it certainly wasn't a siren.

Quote:
I doubt it. More importantly, all Connally heard was the first shot.
That is not correct. He also heard one of the final shots.

Quote:
We know this because we can all see him turn around (that involuntary reflex you talk about). The second shot hit him before the sound reached the car, and by then he was in shock. What Connally says he heard or remembers is immaterial.
If Connally was the only one who failed to hear that shot, you might have an argument, but his perception was the same as all of the others (except JFK) in the limousine. And the same as most of the others throughout Dealey Plaza, according to the Warren Commission.

I seriously doubt that anyone actually heard 223, but I can only prove that "most" did not hear it. You do realize, don't you, that Oswald's rifle generated 130 decibels at street level?

90 decibels is that point at which involuntary startle reactions will occur and permanent hearing loss, with extended exposure.

130 decibels is SIXTEEN TIMES LOUDER. That's why we see this, following the high powered rifle shot at 285.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

The earliest shots would have been the loudest, to the limo passengers, if they all came from Oswald.

The limo passengers are our decibel meters. They tell us when they were hearing extremely loud gunshots and when they were not. This is not a close call.

Last edited by Agatha; 28th September 2015 at 12:39 PM. Reason: fix quote tags
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 21st September 2015, 12:23 AM   #293
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You cannot prove they're reactions.
That is correct. Perhaps all of them decided to duck, spin around, shield their ears etc. in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder's, reaction (as confirmed by Alvarez), by sheer coincidence.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

I also can't prove that the reason JFK raised his hands and arms, was because he was shot, or that Oswald fired his rifle that day, or that it was really JFK in the limo.

What I can prove however, is that there is no plausible, alternative explanation for the simultaneous nature of their actions then, other than that they were reacting to a gunshot.
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 21st September 2015, 12:40 AM   #294
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Who knew?

Three days after John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, U.S. intelligence officials told President Lyndon B. Johnson that they had confirmed that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had recently traveled to Mexico City to visit both the Cuban and Soviet embassies, according to a half-century old briefing memo declassified on Wednesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-soviets-befo/
This stuff is old news. Oswald's visit to Mexico City and his visits to those embassies is covered thoroughly in the PBS documentary, "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald". You can probably find it at the PBS site or on Youtube.
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 21st September 2015, 08:55 AM   #295
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Henry Wade:

Let's review his statement, made to the Dallas Morning News:

I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet.


There are two important assertions here, his claim that the nurse was holding a whole bullet in her hand, something he could not have known if he hadn't seen it (he didn't say "envelope", or that she said she was holding a bullet) and his claim that she told him the bullet came from Connally's "gurney".

Attempts to refute him, have without exception, failed to address the fact that Officer Nolan corroborated those inconvenient statements, almost word for word. This single sentence did the job.

"And she came up and told him (Stinson) that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney. "

Notice BTW, that she was simply carrying out Wade's instructions, to give the bullet to the police.

According to Nolan, he had never spoken to Connally or Wade and had never been exposed to any literature in which any of this was mentioned.

Bill Stinson further corroborated the other three men, when he told Ramparts magazine in 1967,

The last thing they did, was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him.

There is no doubt, that he got this from the same nurse the others mentioned, because he told her to, "give it to him", pointing at Nolan.

He obviously, didn't hear the nurse refer to the "gurney", or he did, but rejected her claim, thinking that it must have been recovered in surgery.

The devil is in the details, gentlemen. It is NOT, in ambiguous, sweeping generalizations or artificial rules, all of which are trumped in this case, by the corroborations.
Speaking of demonic details Robert, have you made any progress yet in getting the name of "that nurse" that your whole story depends on? AFAIK, you've never identified her among the veritably "infinite" number of nurses who worked at Parkland and would haven been on duty in the OR room that fateful day. Your new found buddies over here doubtless have enquiring minds and would like to know.
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 21st September 2015, 09:58 AM   #296
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,255
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So, now we are stuck in an infinite loop. We keep explaining to one person why we are not convinced by his theory, and what we require to be convinced.

Robert, please do not keep insisting you have proven anything. You are not the one who best knows when we have been convinced. We are.

Please supply physical evidence for the silenced shots.

Don't complain that is 'only one kind' of evidence. We will accept any physical evidence. That is a multitude of options. If you want us to believe there was any shooter other than, or as well as, Oswald, this is where you start.
Robert has taken a begged question, added some cherry picked witnesses, some speculation about the cause of movements of people on the Zapruder an other films, added a large dollop of confirmation bias, and come up with something that he, and he alone (at least on this forum) believes is absolute proof that Oswald was not the sole shooter of JFK. He keeps repeating the same garbage, because it's really all he has, and it seems to be inconceivable to him that other people do not find his "proof" to be the least bit convincing.
CORed 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 24th September 2015, 05:59 PM   #297
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
To figure this out, you don't need me and you don't need to examine the Skeptics list things you are expected to believe.

Just understand how loud 130 decibels is and then watch the Zapruder film.

The reactions of the people closest to JFK will tell you when high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.

After 51 years and a hundred theories, that was all that was necessary to resolve the conspiracy question.
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 28th September 2015, 01:05 PM   #298
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,055
Free advice, do with it what you will.

There are thousands of real life videos and film that have people under fire from high powered rifles. Demonstrate the effect repeatedly, not one or two cherry picked clips.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 28th September 2015, 02:16 PM   #299
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Robert has taken a begged question,
And what question is that? I have posted a veritable mountain of evidence to support my claims. To declare that I have asserted unproven claims, you have to do a lot more than just blurt out the accusation. You need to address the facts and evidence I have presented.

Quote:
added some cherry picked witnesses
Is it possible that you are never specific in your accusations because you know that you can't support them to save your life?

I have cited the Warren Commission's conclusion that "MOST" of the relevant witnesses said they heard only a single, early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

I have also cited the passengers in the limo, who were nearly unanimous in their agreement with all the others, and whose visible movement were also consistent with that large consensus.

How exactly, is that "cherry picking"??

Quote:
some speculation about the cause of movements of people on the Zapruder an other films
I did not speculate. The same people we see reacting, told us exactly what they were hearing then, and it wasn't a siren, was it?

And even if you reject the witnesses, the scientists and empirical evidence that each of those passengers reacted in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, and Abraham Zapruder, you still need to address the fact that only one of the early shots was audible to the witnesses.

And even that shot was not loud enough to provoke startle reactions. Why don't see see this, following 223 and 313?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2015, 02:23 PM   #300
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
Speaking of demonic details Robert, have you made any progress yet in getting the name of "that nurse" that your whole story depends on?
I have no idea what her name was. I only know for sure, that it wasn't Audrey Bell. But why would you think her name was critical to all this?

If we had her name, you guys would just have one more for the liar, liar list, wouldn't you
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 28th September 2015, 02:42 PM   #301
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Hi, Mr. Harris. Allow me to introduce myself. I, Sandy McCroskey, am the same person who wrote this earlier in this same thread (on this same page):

As there is no proof that the limo passengers were exhibiting startle reactions to a single stimulus, let alone the specific stimulus you allege, at either of those points in the Zapruder film
You are flatly wrong. Let's look at the evidence that you forever evade:

1. The reactions all began in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, at Zapruder frames 290-292.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

2. Dr. Alvarez determined that Abraham Zapruder was startled at frame 285 and began to react at 290-291, in perfect unison with the limo passengers.

3. Alvarez also said that Greer slowed the limo, in reaction to that same noise. His theory is corroborated in that same segment I just linked, which proves that he began to spin around during that same 1/6th of a second of the other reactions.

4. With the exception of the two victims, each of the witnesses described closely bunched shots at the end of the attack. Coming from high powered rifles, generating 130-140 decibels, they HAD TO PROVOKE STARTLE REACTIONS.

Therefore, there had to be two sets of startle reactions, one for each of those rifle shots. We see exactly that following 285 and then 313.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2015, 03:02 PM   #302
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
It appears, Bob, that you missed Hank's explanation, very patiently provided, of what the other assumptions are that make your question a loaded one.
I didn't ask him about "assumptions". I asked him,

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?


I didn't say you asked Hank about assumptions. I said that Hank explained what assumptions you were making in formulating a loaded question.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Hank does not evade that question because of any screwball "assumptions". He evades it because there is only one plausible answer, and that answer puts an end to this debate.
In your mind, Bob.
Not in anyone else's.
Somehow my "edited" post came out with a misattribution of two paragraphs. Let me fix that.

Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
It appears, Bob, that you missed Hank's explanation, very patiently provided, of what the other assumptions are that make your question a loaded one.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I didn't ask him about "assumptions". I asked him,

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

I didn't say you asked Hank about assumptions. I said that Hank explained what assumptions you were making in formulating a loaded question.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Hank does not evade that question because of any screwball "assumptions". He evades it because there is only one plausible answer, and that answer puts an end to this debate.
In your mind, Bob.
Not in anyone else's.
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 28th September 2015, 03:43 PM   #303
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

I also can't prove that the reason JFK raised his hands and arms, was because he was shot, or that Oswald fired his rifle that day, or that it was really JFK in the limo.
Then you are really in trouble.
And it is beyond me how you can then state the following...

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What I can prove however, is that there is no plausible, alternative explanation for the simultaneous nature of their actions then, other than that they were reacting to a gunshot.
...basing it solely on the so-called evidence we've seen.
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 28th September 2015, 04:19 PM   #304
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?..

Hank does not evade that question because of any screwball "assumptions". He evades it because there is only one plausible answer, and that answer puts an end to this debate.


Quote:
In your mind, Bob.
Not in anyone else's.
Well, let's do a test. What is your answer to the question. Here it is again.

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
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 28th September 2015, 08:32 PM   #305
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
To figure this out, you don't need me and you don't need to examine the Skeptics list things you are expected to believe.

Just understand how loud 130 decibels is and then watch the Zapruder film.

The reactions of the people closest to JFK will tell you when high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.

After 51 years and a hundred theories, that was all that was necessary to resolve the conspiracy question.

Ok. It's resolved. You've won. Everyone here agrees with you.
You have no one left here to argue with.
The FBI think you're a master detective.
Your Nobel Prize is in the post.
Santa has put you on the nice list.
Your YouTube videos are ranked #1 worldwide.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove sentence unsuitable for moderated thread.

Last edited by Agatha; 29th September 2015 at 05:01 AM.
ComfySlippers 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 29th September 2015, 05:36 AM   #306
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,986
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And what question is that?
The one you keep begging and repeatedly have been told is a begged question. The one where you have an opinion of "startle reactions" to what you claim can only be gun shots which you're inferring from looking at a video without sound. Then you're assuming your desired conclusion to be true and asking questions as if it were. It's the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" kind of begged question.

Rather than starting with your desired conclusion and trying to force fit your opinions into it, how about providing some evidence to support it? Your phantom rifle, phantom bullets, phantom shooter, phantom suppressor? Anything at all? The nameless nurse? Do you have anything?

Quote:
I have posted a veritable mountain of evidence to support my claims.
Ah, good. What was the FBI's reaction to it? That's a question you've studiously avoided every time it's been asked.

Also, what did you think of the videos I posted earlier? If you posted a rebuttal to any of them, I apologize for having missed it. Can you post a link to your refutation? Here's one of the videos again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk

In what way does it support your opinions?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 07:47 AM   #307
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
You are flatly wrong. Let's look at the evidence that you forever evade:
I've seen all your "evidence" a zillion times. I have explained almost as many times why I do not find your argument convincing. Your repeating it yet again does nothing to change that.
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 29th September 2015, 07:58 AM   #308
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?..

Hank does not evade that question because of any screwball "assumptions". He evades it because there is only one plausible answer, and that answer puts an end to this debate.




Well, let's do a test. What is your answer to the question. Here it is again.

Why don't we see reactions by the limo passengers, to the early shots that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

It's just a silly game, the way you ignore my answers and merely repeat the questions.

I told you, in this same message you are replying to, that I don't see anything that needs explaining about the various so-called "reactions" that have fueled your fantasy for fifteen-plus years.

So no need to explain the alleged absence of "startle reactions" anywhere else, on a low-rez film where such cannot be definitively determined in any case.

We disagree about this, Bob. In all honesty. I'm not "evading" anything.

I am sure you will will go on forever, repeating as if it is a fact that Kellerman shielded his ear, when that can only be your guess. Etc. etc. etc. And you will sincerely believe it. I wouldn't claim to be able to read your mind somehow and know otherwise.
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 29th September 2015, 09:01 AM   #309
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
Somehow my "edited" post came out with a misattribution of two paragraphs. Let me fix that.
Since Hank seems to have thrown in the towel, let's deal with the arguments you've been evading. I'll repost them for you:

You are flatly wrong. Let's look at the evidence that you forever evade:

1. The reactions all began in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, at Zapruder frames 290-292.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

2. Dr. Alvarez determined that Abraham Zapruder was startled at frame 285 and began to react at 290-291, in perfect unison with the limo passengers.

3. Alvarez also said that Greer slowed the limo, in reaction to that same noise. His theory is corroborated in that same segment I just linked, which proves that he began to spin around during that same 1/6th of a second of the other reactions.

4. With the exception of the two victims, each of the witnesses described closely bunched shots at the end of the attack. Coming from high powered rifles, generating 130-140 decibels, they HAD TO PROVOKE STARTLE REACTIONS.

Therefore, there had to be two sets of startle reactions, one for each of those rifle shots. We see exactly that following 285 and then 313.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2015, 09:20 AM   #310
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Ok. It's resolved. You've won
Thank you for your candor.

Can you imagine, there are still people who think that Alvarez "mistakenly" placed Zapruder's reaction at 290-291, ignoring the reactions of the passengers at 290-292, which included three people ducking in perfect unison?

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
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 29th September 2015, 10:31 AM   #311
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,955
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Just understand how loud 130 decibels is...
No. You proved you don't understand the physics and acoustics.

Quote:
The reactions of the people closest to JFK will tell you when high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.
No. This is your inference. You infer it from two principles, both of which require specialized expertise and in neither of which you have demonstrated competence.

Quote:
After 51 years and a hundred theories, that was all that was necessary to resolve the conspiracy question.
Yet your theory seems to get no traction, and there seems to be a lot of people whom you characterize as "idiots" who disagree with it. Did the acoustics expert upon whom you rely buy into the whole "everyone should hear all the shots?" premise? No, but you invoke him as if he did. The eminent psychologist upon whom you rely seems to have not been consulted at all by any of the various official investigations. Yet you seem to have assumed his mantle, and the miraculous ability to transform movements on film into a certain hail of gunfire -- requiring only a shoehorn with a silencer to make it fit the evidence. Let's add to this your disagreement with the experts on the polygraph evidence.

The conspiracy question is not resolved, because you're just one among dozens of conspiracy theorists with competing theories. You claim your theory is "based on the evidence," when so does everyone else. I hope the paragraph above helps you realize that your argument is perhaps "based" on evidence, but is composed almost entirely of things you simply make up. Yes, you try hard to attribute it to the experts you quote, but you don't seem to understand what it means to invoke outside expertise. These are not abstract quibbles or sophistical nits. These are real, fundamental problems with your theory -- and why it's roundly rejected.
JayUtah is online now   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 29th September 2015, 01:26 PM   #312
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,255
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And what question is that? I have posted a veritable mountain of evidence to support my claims. To declare that I have asserted unproven claims, you have to do a lot more than just blurt out the accusation. You need to address the facts and evidence I have presented.



Is it possible that you are never specific in your accusations because you know that you can't support them to save your life?

I have cited the Warren Commission's conclusion that "MOST" of the relevant witnesses said they heard only a single, early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

I have also cited the passengers in the limo, who were nearly unanimous in their agreement with all the others, and whose visible movement were also consistent with that large consensus.

How exactly, is that "cherry picking"??



I did not speculate. The same people we see reacting, told us exactly what they were hearing then, and it wasn't a siren, was it?

And even if you reject the witnesses, the scientists and empirical evidence that each of those passengers reacted in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, and Abraham Zapruder, you still need to address the fact that only one of the early shots was audible to the witnesses.

And even that shot was not loud enough to provoke startle reactions. Why don't see see this, following 223 and 313?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
No, you haven't presented a mountain of evidence. You really haven't presented any evidence at all that shots were fired other than Oswald's. You've taken some vague testimony about the timing of the shots and constructed a timeline that you thin makes it impossible for Oswald to have fired the last two. You've manufactured a "startle reflex" from movements of passengers in the limo (probably due to the driver lifting off the gas or tapping the brake) and declared that these movements "prove" a shot was fired at that instant. Then you have to concoct a ridiculous idea of a supressed, subsonic weapon to account for the fact that nobody heard the extra shots you think were fired, shots that didn't hit anybody or leave any other evidence that they exist anywhere other than you imagination.

Others have refuted in more detail, I don't find it necessary. What you have presented so far is so weak as to be self-refuting.

You can repeat your nonsense, and stamp your feet and insist you have irrefutably proven that there were shots fired by someone other than one more time if you wish, but you haven't convinced me, or anybody else on this forum. Repeating your big batch of nothin' six or seven more times won't change that.
CORed 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 29th September 2015, 02:29 PM   #313
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
Free advice, do with it what you will.

There are thousands of real life videos and film that have people under fire from high powered rifles. Demonstrate the effect repeatedly, not one or two cherry picked clips.
I don't understand your request. Do you doubt my claims about these sound levels? When I first posted here, I linked to an article, which included this chart by the Australian government.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/dia...-frequency.jpg

Testing has proven that involuntary startle reactions as well as permanent hearing damage can occur, when people are exposed to 90 or more decibels.

Oswald's rifle generated sound levels 16 times greater than that. Other high powered rifles generate levels of 140 or more, decibels.

I have not found "thousands" of videos in which people are exposed to unexpected, high decibel sound levels and I shouldn't have to. The fact that people reacted almost identically in the videos I posted, to the limo passengers following 285 and 313, proves quite conclusively what we already know. Here is another one, I hadn't linked here before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTxv0phIaAk

It's just ridiculous to deny how people react to this kind of thing.

It's even more ridiculous to argue that three people simultaneously ducking and two spinning around at enormous speed, was NOT caused by a loud and startling noise, especially since two of the top scientists in this country, identified such a noise at the precise instant that they (and Zapruder) reacted.

Add to that the corroboration of the same people who reacted, along with most others in Dealey Plaza, that they were hearing two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

If they were correct and those shots came from high powered rifles, we should see TWO sets of similar reactions, one following the other.

And that is EXACTLY what we see. (we only see the ladies duck once, since they stayed down after the first of the two.)

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2015, 02:56 PM   #314
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I have no idea what her name was. I only know for sure, that it wasn't Audrey Bell. But why would you think her name was critical to all this?

If we had her name, you guys would just have one more for the liar, liar list, wouldn't you
Nice way to side-step an obviously germane question. The issue is *not* whether we would believe her claims if we knew her name; for how could we possibly assess the credibility of an unnamed actor in your little story? The issue is that mysterious "unnamed" characters who play a key role in a story that, AFAIK, only one human being on the planet is telling, are more indicative of a homespun yarn, than a sober fact of history to be reckoned upon.

You may vigorously disagree with that characterization, but if people came to you with an important pro-LN story that was supported by 30-40 year old recollections and an appeal to an anonymous cop, I'm pretty sure you'd get the relevance of that analogy to legend much quicker.
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 1st October 2015, 03:25 PM   #315
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That is correct. Perhaps all of them decided to duck, spin around, shield their ears etc. in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder's, reaction (as confirmed by Alvarez), by sheer coincidence.

I also can't prove that the reason JFK raised his hands and arms, was because he was shot, or that Oswald fired his rifle that day, or that it was really JFK in the limo.


What I can prove however, is that there is no plausible, alternative explanation for the simultaneous nature of their actions then, other than that they were reacting to a gunshot.

Funny you should mention that Robert. Seems we had that "discussion" once before. For those interested, you don't have to read too far into this post to pick up the irony of Bob's claims to be so ignorant as to why JFK would be raising his hands and arms. I cannot post a link yet as I have not made 15 or more posts so I will only extract the relevant excerpt for the interested.

From a post back in June 9, 2013 at Google Groups Alt.Assassination.JFK:

------------------------Begin Posting Excerpt---------------------------------------


Poster John Canal had said:

You also must know that your evidence for a shot being fired at 285 is not exactly 100% conclusive...like DNA evidence would be, right?

To which Bob Harris replied:

I think a much better analogy would be to JFK's reaction beginning at 226, when his arms began to rise. The possibility of that being the result of something other than him being wounded, is approximately equal to the possibility that the limo passengers reacted to something other than a gunshot at 285.


To which I replied:


***THANK YOU ROBERT HARRIS! You have just demonstrated that you really DON’T understand HARD CORROBORATIVE evidence.***

***LURKERS EVERYWHERE*** ***MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!***

Bob has just stated that he thinks that his evidence for a shot is Z285 is as solid as the evidence for a shot at approximately Z222-223. Per Mr. Harris, the chance that he is wrong about Z285 is roughly the chance that JFK’s raising his arms around Z226 is not due to him being wounded!

REALLY? Let’s do a comparison, shall we? To corroborate JFK’s arm/hand raising motion that we see begin around Z226 we have just a “few” trivial pieces of outside corroborative information:

-His Parkland medical report

-The Bethesda autopsy report

-The autopsy photographic reviews of various later panels (Clark, Rockefeller, HSCA).

From these we have clear evidence that JFK was struck in his lower neck/upper back region by a missile from behind that passed near his spine and exited beneath his Adams Apple. Based on such a trauma, it is to be EXPECTED that somewhere in the Zfilm JFK might be seen reacting in PRECISELY the way he does around Z226.

For frame Z226 when we see JFK reacting as he does, we don’t just have a set of actions that we can only observe with our eyes, or perhaps try to match up with someone’s foggy memory under the stress of the moment, to help us somehow “interpret” and “theorize” on what is happening.

So for Z226 we have REAL HARD CORROBORATIVE FORENSIC evidence telling us EXACTLY what is going on with JFK at that moment. Hence, we KNOW he was wounded and we KNOW that’s WHY his arms are raising like they did.

Bob Harris will now presnt for Z285 the following EQUIVALENT real HARD forensic/CORROBORATIVE evidence that’s telling us EXACTLY what is going on with the limo passengers at that moment: _____________________________.

....SO NOW IS THE TIME WHEN BOB SAYS---> Errr…Let’s go back to arguing REAL facts like startle reactions and 1/6 of a second and shock waves and storm drains!

(Yep. Pretty much the EQUIVALENT proof I was expecting.)

-----------------------End Posting Excerpt-----------------------------------------

I might add that Bob's stunning reply to date has been every bit as enlightening as the _______________________________________. I gave him rightful credit for above.
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 2nd October 2015, 08:05 AM   #316
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Robert Harris said,

That is correct. Perhaps all of them decided to duck, spin around, shield their ears etc. in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder's, reaction (as confirmed by Alvarez), by sheer coincidence.

I also can't prove that the reason JFK raised his hands and arms, was because he was shot, or that Oswald fired his rifle that day, or that it was really JFK in the limo.


What I can prove however, is that there is no plausible, alternative explanation for the simultaneous nature of their actions then, other than that they were reacting to a gunshot.


Originally Posted by BT George View Post
[b]Funny you should mention that Robert. Seems we had that "discussion" once before.
Why don't you simply address the issues raised in the post you replied to?

Do you believe that the limo passengers,

..decided to duck, spin around, shield their ears etc. in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder's, reaction (as confirmed by Alvarez), by sheer coincidence?

Do you think there is a reason why they reacted in perfect unison with one another and Zapruder?

If you do, then what do you suppose that was?
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 2nd October 2015, 08:22 AM   #317
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
Nice way to side-step an obviously germane question.
Is is not a "germaine" question. It is a sleezy tactic, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

You knew very well, that her name is unknown. If it wasn't, you probably would have demanded DNA evidence, or whatever else, you knew did not exist.

These are junior high school debate tactics. It is what the nurse said and did, that matters. And that was confirmed by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney and the police officer who was guarding Connally at the time.

Quote:
The issue is *not* whether we would believe her claims if we knew her name; for how could we possibly assess the credibility of an unnamed actor in your little story?
"your little story"??

Is this how you think important issues should be resolved? When do you start with "Na, na na na na"?

It is not the nurse's fault that her name was not mentioned by the witnesses. All that matters is what she said and did.

Connally SAW her her pick the bullet up.

Wade SAW the bullet in her hand.

Audrey Bell, whose name we DO know, confirmed that she was not the one who gave her fragments to Nolan, as the FBI claimed.

We also know the names of the four men who examined CE399 and refused to confirm that it was the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.

And we know the names of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, who said that they initialed the original bullet, but whose initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.

If you want to involve yourself in this, in any meaningful way, address the actual facts and evidence and stop trying to divert the discussion to totally irrelevant issues.
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 2nd October 2015, 09:48 AM   #318
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
Funny you should mention that Robert. Seems we had that "discussion" once before. For those interested, you don't have to read too far into this post to pick up the irony of Bob's claims to be so ignorant as to why JFK would be raising his hands and arms. I cannot post a link yet as I have not made 15 or more posts so I will only extract the relevant excerpt for the interested.

From a post back in June 9, 2013 at Google Groups Alt.Assassination.JFK:

------------------------Begin Posting Excerpt---------------------------------------


Poster John Canal had said:

You also must know that your evidence for a shot being fired at 285 is not exactly 100% conclusive...like DNA evidence would be, right?

To which Bob Harris replied:

I think a much better analogy would be to JFK's reaction beginning at 226, when his arms began to rise. The possibility of that being the result of something other than him being wounded, is approximately equal to the possibility that the limo passengers reacted to something other than a gunshot at 285.


To which I replied:


***THANK YOU ROBERT HARRIS! You have just demonstrated that you really DON’T understand HARD CORROBORATIVE evidence.***

***LURKERS EVERYWHERE*** ***MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!***

Bob has just stated that he thinks that his evidence for a shot is Z285 is as solid as the evidence for a shot at approximately Z222-223. Per Mr. Harris, the chance that he is wrong about Z285 is roughly the chance that JFK’s raising his arms around Z226 is not due to him being wounded!

REALLY? Let’s do a comparison, shall we? To corroborate JFK’s arm/hand raising motion that we see begin around Z226 we have just a “few” trivial pieces of outside corroborative information:

-His Parkland medical report
I was going to ignore this nonsense, but if nothing else, it might present a useful tutorial on evidence, for George.

It will also give me another chance to go through evidence I have presented, which some of the more radical of my adversaries continue to pretend, does not exist.

Let me begin by emphasizing that I am quite certain there was a shot at 223. This about comparing the evidence for that shot with the evidence for a shot at 285. So, let's begin.

BT, you need to cite the portion of "His Parkland medical report" that supports a shot at 223. Please post it verbatim.

Quote:
-The Bethesda autopsy report
Please cite verbatim. I see nothing in either of those reports which suggests that these doctors even knew there was a frame 223. But perhaps I overlooked something.

Quote:
-The autopsy photographic reviews of various later panels (Clark, Rockefeller, HSCA).
This is getting tiresome, BT. Why can't you post exactly what these guys said, that supports a shot at 223?

Quote:
From these we have clear evidence that JFK was struck in his lower neck/upper back region by a missile from behind that passed near his spine and exited beneath his Adams Apple.
Despite your failure to document that assertion, I'll give you a free pass on that one. Now, just prove to us that that shot was fired at 223.

Quote:
Based on such a trauma, it is to be EXPECTED that somewhere in the Zfilm JFK might be seen reacting in PRECISELY the way he does around Z226.
"might" is indeed, the correct descriptor. But what if he was hit just after 313, by one of the shots that came in a "flurry" then? Do you think we would see him react to that shot?

Quote:
For frame Z226 when we see JFK reacting as he does, we don’t just have a set of actions that we can only observe with our eyes,
Obviously, we do, since you have failed to present a single bit of evidence, hard, documented or otherwise, which proves he was hit then.

We ONLY have the subjective evidence of what we see.

Quote:
or perhaps try to match up with someone’s foggy memory under the stress of the moment, to help us somehow “interpret” and “theorize” on what is happening.
LOL!! Well, you certainly aren't going to have any witnesses support, since no one heard that shot. But why would you label the large majority of witnesses as a being "foggy"? They were amazingly consistent with one another, and the people in the limo who we see reacting.

Quote:
So for Z226 we have REAL HARD CORROBORATIVE FORENSIC evidence telling us EXACTLY what is going on with JFK at that moment.
We do?

Then why can't you cite it? Did you notice that you couldn't produce even ONE, verbatim citation?

Quote:
Hence, we KNOW he was wounded and we KNOW that’s WHY his arms are raising like they did.
Of course we do. Any freakin idiot can see that.

But we're talking about objective, verifiable evidence - not subjective.

I have documentation from two of the nation's top scientists that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285.

You have NO scientific evidence.

I have empirical evidence of FIVE people (six if we count Zapruder), all reacting simultaneously, following 285, by ducking, spinning around shielding their ear, etc.

You have one.

I have "most" of the witnesses in Dealey that day, stating that they heard shots which matched perfectly with 285 and 313.

You have almost NO ONE who claims to have heard a shot at 223.

I have statements from the people who actually reacted following 285, that they heard a gunshot then.

You have no such statements to support your argument.

So, let's put your evidence on one side of the scale and mine on the other. It isn't even close, is it BT
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 2nd October 2015, 09:57 AM   #319
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
No, you haven't presented a mountain of evidence. You really haven't presented any evidence at all that shots were fired other than Oswald's. You've taken some vague testimony about the timing of the shots and constructed a timeline that you thin makes it impossible for Oswald to have fired the last two. You've manufactured a "startle reflex" from movements of passengers in the limo (probably due to the driver lifting off the gas or tapping the brake) and declared that these movements "prove" a shot was fired at that instant. Then you have to concoct a ridiculous idea of a supressed, subsonic weapon to account for the fact that nobody heard the extra shots you think were fired, shots that didn't hit anybody or leave any other evidence that they exist anywhere other than you imagination.

Others have refuted in more detail, I don't find it necessary. What you have presented so far is so weak as to be self-refuting.

You can repeat your nonsense, and stamp your feet and insist you have irrefutably proven that there were shots fired by someone other than one more time if you wish, but you haven't convinced me, or anybody else on this forum. Repeating your big batch of nothin' six or seven more times won't change that.
Did you notice that you have addressed NONE of the facts and evidence I presented? If you are correct, it should have been easy to prove that my arguments do not constitute "evidence".

Why can't you address the fact that two of the nation's top scientists concluded that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285?

Why can't you tell us what these people are reacting to, if not a gunshot?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Why can't you explain why these people all reacted in the same 1/6th of one second?

Why can't you talk about the fact that "most" of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots and that even it, wasn't loud enough to provoke startle reactions like we see following 285 and 313?

Instead of just blurting out that I have not presented sufficient evidence, why don't prove it? Address my arguments specifically.
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 2nd October 2015, 10:12 AM   #320
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. You proved you don't understand the physics and acoustics.
Yawn.. it is so tiring, hearing these ambiguous accusations that you couldn't prove to save your life.

The reactions of the people closest to JFK will tell you when high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.

Quote:
No. This is your inference. You infer it from two principles, both of which require specialized expertise and in neither of which you have demonstrated competence.
I don't think so. If that were true, you wouldn't have to be vague about those "two principles" that you think, require expert analysis.

Tell me Jay, do we require an expert to determine whether this woman was exposed to a high powered rifle shot, or similar noise?

http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content...ers-Mother.jpg

How about this guy? Turn off the sound and tell me if we need a Phd to determine whether he and others around him was startled or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A

You see Jay, not all analyses require experts. Like those and similar issues in the Zapruder film, some thing are so ridiculously obvious that a graduation from junior high school, is not necessary to make aa accurate call.

Your pretense that expertise is required in these issues is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the facts that there were NO startle reactions to the early shots, and ridiculously obvious startle reactions to the shots at the end.
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:24 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.