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 10th September 2015, 08:16 PM   #201
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
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:.
Tom, you've been all over me since I started posting here, but you seem like an intelligent guy. Rather than generalize, let's analyze this thing, based on the specifics.

If only one witness had made a statement like those, I would never have bothered to write the article. But there were three - Connally, Wade and Nolan, whose recollections were mutually corroborative.

The "gurney" term, IMO, removes all possible doubt. Without knowing Connally's story, the notion that this bullet came from a gurney, makes no sense at all. It is 100% non-intuitive. The odds that just Nolan and Wade would suffer identical illusions or false memories of being told such a thing, is beyond calculation.

To support the FBI's story, you must believe that they not only suffered identical delusions about a "gurney", they had to both suffer identical memory failures related to the nurse claiming that she had a whole bullet, rather than 4 almost microscopic fragments from Connally's wrist.

Either that, or you must assume that Bell lied to the district attorney and one police officer.

In fact, Bell flatly denied the FBI report which falsely claimed that she told them, she passed a single "fragment" to officer Nolan. She obviously did not. And the FBI also lied about the number of items in the envelope, for the equally obvious reason that Nolan's envelope contained one item.

Think about it. No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
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, 10:33 PM   #202
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,908
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
If only one witness had made a statement like those, I would never have bothered to write the article. But there were three - Connally, Wade and Nolan, whose recollections were mutually corroborative.

The "gurney" term, IMO, removes all possible doubt. Without knowing Connally's story, the notion that this bullet came from a gurney, makes no sense at all. It is 100% non-intuitive. The odds that just Nolan and Wade would suffer identical illusions or false memories of being told such a thing, is beyond calculation.

You don't seem to understand the way memory works. Its been shown that memory is very indistinct. It's been shown that people will revise their memories based on what others believe. This, of course, is an important evolutionary development. On the one hand, the consensus is probably closer to the truth than any one memory. Add to that the fact that we, as a social species, really like to agree with each other. And a single shared memory helps reinforce social bonds.

These are all principles of psychology and neurology that have been tested and proven time and again.

Yet, because they run counter to what you wish were the truth, you discount them.

At the same time as you apply your version of common sense, you refuse to confront some serious problems: Plenty of mafiosos have been arrested,, charged and jailed since 1963 from every crime family. Some of the most terrible serial killers have cut deals and testified against their bosses. Yet not one of those people have ever come forward to claim first-hand knowledge of the mob's involvement in the shooting.

LHO's life has been inspected probably in as much detail as a life can be. We know of his military service, his attempted defection to the USSR, his very odd relationship with his wife, and more. Yet nobody has ever been able to put Oswald together with anyone who had the ability to create a killbox in the middle of Dallas.

And there have been tell-all books from every sort of federal official. Not one claims knowledge of the assassination or of ever hearing anyone else claim involvement.

Yet a silenced rifle that was not accurate enough to assassinate anyone and was barely in use in 1963 must have been one of the murder weapons?

The importance of evidence waxes and wains, generally according to whether you think it helps your case. This is very, very bad historiography and I urge you to stop ... just stop.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 10th September 2015 at 10:43 PM.
Loss Leader 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 11th September 2015, 12:26 AM   #203
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,922
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Think about it. No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
This would be one of the silenced shots that left no physical trace upon the world? For which you can provide no physical evidence?

I think there may be another explanation, don't you?
__________________
@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 11th September 2015, 04:14 AM   #204
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,919
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
Alternately, no one heard the "shot" at 223 because there was no shot.

We have evidence for the three from LHO. No evidence for any other shots - you've presented your opinion that several other shots were made by a silenced rifle of unknown calibre, from an unknown location, that failed to hit anything, based on your interpretation of people's reactions in a silent film.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 11th September 2015, 05:31 AM   #205
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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.
Let's take this one step step at a time.

Do YOU see what appears to be "FF" on the envelope? And do YOU agree that they were partially erased?

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

A simple yes or no will do nicely.
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 11th September 2015, 06:08 AM   #206
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Asserted but not proven. You know this based on what evidence?
You seem to have forgotten once again, about who bears the burden of proof. You asserted,

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

Therefore, YOU need to prove that the goal was to frame a lone-nut patsy.

Quote:
Asserted but not proven. You know this based on what evidence?
I don't have to produce evidence to prove what is common knowledge in a JFK forum, and it is disingenuous to dispute what you already know and fully agree with.

The mob, the Cuban exiles and the CIA have always been the top suspects among conspiracy advocates, and all three of them bore motivations to drive Castro out of power. Are you really going to make me explain to you, what you've known about for over 20 years?

Let's cut out the crap and get to what's important.

Can we now agree that "most" of the DP witnesses heard a shot (or something that sounded like a shot) and then nothing at all prior to the end of the attack, when they heard closely bunched shots?

Can we agree that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke reactions like we see following 285 and 313?

Can we agree that those reactions could only have been in response to the same loud and startling noise that Alvarez discovered at frame 285?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

And finally, can we agree that based on the testimonies of the same people we see reacting, and the minor detail that they were in the middle of a shooting, that it is a virtual certainty that they were reacting to a gunshot at 285?
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 11th September 2015, 06:11 AM   #207
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Robert's theory is, in some ways, remarkably similar to Lifton's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory
Hey! I see that reinforcements have arrived

What do you think was the cause of these reactions?

http://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 11th September 2015, 06:55 AM   #208
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
Nonsense, I discussed Braden many times in this forum and you know it.

Quote:
as I've asked ten times for your evidence, and you have yet to respond.
I have responded many times and have gone into great detail about why I suspect Braden. Besides the fact that he was in arguably, the best sniper location in Dealey Plaza, he had connections with Carlos Marcello and David Ferrie, and was in the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination.

He also lied in his HSCA testimony, claiming that he was with Roger Carol, his parole officer. Carol of course, flatly denied his alibi. In addition to that, I have posted evidence which suggests that a portion of the blinds in a particular, third floor (the floor Braden was on) window in the Daltex, may have been cut out to allow a sniper there to remain unseen. I demonstrate this in the beginning of this presentation.

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

Of course I explained all this to you before, but I guess you just thought it would sound impressive to claim that I evaded you "ten times". I have long lost track of the number of times you have misrepresented me and misrepresented key witnesses.

BTW, when are you going to post a retraction for your false accusation that Connally said he never looked back at JFK, trying to make it appear that he lied, when he said in his book that he did?

I guess you can't apologize to him, but you can apologize to the forum members who you misled on this important issue.

You need to acknowledge the fact that there were NO LIES and NO CONTRADICTIONS with his WC testimony in his autobiography.

You might even want to consider that you've played the "liar liar" card to the point where it's become more of a joke than an argument.

Quote:
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.
This is not an either/or proposition. By far, the most likely conclusion is that both were involved. Technically speaking however, you cannot prove that Oswald fired his rifle that day, just as I cannot absolutely prove that Braden was involved in the assassination. BTW, you are familiar with Dallas chief of police, Jesse Curry's statement to the Dallas Morning News, are you not?

"I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

Oh wait! The article must be a lie, since it is mere "hearsay"

Let's talk about what really matters - the overwhelming evidence that Oswald could not have fired any of the early shots or all of the final ones.

Those facts trump all of this "liar, liar" crap and your attacks on perfectly credible witnesses.

Let's start with the perception of most witnesses, that they could only hear one of the early shots and the fact that we see no visible startle reactions then.

Why do you suppose 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 11th September 2015, 08:10 AM   #209
BT George
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
Yes. I meant the source of the shots. This possible 7th shot is new to me. Maybe he's expanded his theories further or else I just couldn't hold my interest in his presentations to get to that record shattering 7th one!

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 11th September 2015, 08:23 AM   #210
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

I can remember 11/22/63 quite well and I absolutely assure you that none of my memories are delusions.
How can you know this?
Under the heading "delusion," though it is really not le mot juste, I think you must be including any kind of inaccuracy.
How have you been able to check that everything you remember about that day is 100 percent accurate? (This is a rhetorical question, actually. There is no way you could check.)

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I seriously doubt that you or anyone else in this newsgroup who is not being treated for mental problems suffered delusions either.
When we say that memories are often distorted, especially after the passage of many years, we are not saying that anyone suffers from mental illness. "Mistaken" does not mean "lying" and "inaccuracy" does not mean "delusion."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
They are not the ones who are full of crap, Hank. We both know who that is.
Indeed, I think we all do (with the possible exception of one). I am confident that Hank's opinions as expressed here are his honest convictions. And he makes a helluva lot more sense, at every turn, than you do.
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 11th September 2015, 08:39 AM   #211
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
But since you're so eager to jump into the fray...
He said he wasn't.

Quote:
...why don't you share with the forum, you're opinion about the cause of these reactions?
Shifting the burden of proof. You affirmatively alleged:

(1) the motions seen in the video are reactions, and
(2) the reactions are to a gunshot.

You must individually prove each of these allegations. I have separated them in this fashion because if you cannot prove (1) then (2) immediately fails by subversion of support.

You're asking people to comment on (2) assuming that (1) is true. That is the definition of a loaded question. You must first prove (1). Then, since (2) is your particular affirmed hypothesis, you must prove (2). It is no one else's job to explain (2) even after you may have proved (1).

And as you say, you have presented your case ad nauseam without achieving that proof on either point.

Quote:
Why don't you tell them, my friend?
I would be more interested in hearing you respond to the six alleged shots he has identified and ascribed to your theory. Is he correct? Do you allege those six shots? If not, please carefully describe each shot you allege to have been taken, identify who took it (either by name or location), identify the weapon used (if possible), and show the evidence that supports or tests each hypothesized shot.

Since there seems to be considerable confusion between you and your critics as to what you're actually claiming, I think a request for a once-for-all clarification is not out of order.
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 11th September 2015, 11:40 AM   #212
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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).
When I was specifically asked about when shots were fired, I described the ones that were certain, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. I added that there may have been one prior to 133, which is exactly what nutter spokesman, Max Holland claims and may have been one (not two) after 313. In fact, I think that final one was a 90 percenter.

But instead of attacking me based on you your dislike of the number of shots, don't you think it would be better to address the question of whether I am correct or not?

The 285 shot is the deal breaker, Hank. Why don't you ever want to talk about it? Tell everyone what you think the cause of those reactions was.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Quote:
"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.
What a preposterous argument! Of course a silenced weapon was used. The witnesses were nearly unanimous that they only heard one of the early shots. And John Connally confirmed that beyond all reasonable doubt, because he heard the shot at 160 and then only FELT the next one, which hit him at 223.

THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.
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 11th September 2015, 11:51 AM   #213
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Just filling out my scorecard here:
We both know that it was possible to acquire or build a suppressed rifle in 1963. As for your "scorecard", it looks pretty empty to me, in regard to answering the most important questions. These are some of the questions that you've been evading. Please answer.

Why was it that most witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

Why did John Connally hear one shot, but not the next one that hit him?

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

Why do we see numerous, happy smiling faces in the Altgens photo, snapped at frame 255, if two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots have already been fired?

Why was there no screaming, diving to the ground, or Secret Service agents in action, until AFTER frame 285??
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 11th September 2015, 01:56 PM   #214
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
What is "hearsay"?

The Encyclopedia Britannica is "hearsay".

Websters abridged and unabridged dictionaries are "hearsay".

Every book and article in the Library of Congress is "hearsay".

The Warren Commission and HSCA reports, which were published in book form, are also "hearsay".

The term has been grossly abused by Hank, who uses it as a tool to attack witnesses who are otherwise, beyond beyond reproach. For example, he says we should not trust the Dallas Morning News' published interview of District Attorney, Henry Wade, because it is "hearsay".

He likewise says that Connally's own autobiography cannot be trusted because it too, is "hearsay". Of course, he combines that with his "liar, liar" accusations, although he can't seem to make up his mind, whether Connally was the liar, or his writer, neither of whom, he can prove have ever lied about ANYTHING throughout their entire lives. And god knows, he has tried:-)

This is an historically important issue. It deserves serious, honest discussion, grounded solidly in reality and without a lot of junior high school debate tactics.

It is beyond insane to claim that the Governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney, a police officer and the nurse who recovered the bullet, all coincidentally, fabricated false delusions (I know, that's redundant:-) about a bullet coming from Connally's "gurney".

Those men and that nurse, told the truth, just as supervisor, Audrey Bell told the truth when she denied the FBI's claim that she was the nurse who passed an envelope containing "one fragment" to Nolan.
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 11th September 2015, 03:11 PM   #215
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Tom, you've been all over me since I started posting here, but you seem like an intelligent guy. Rather than generalize, let's analyze this thing, based on the specifics.

If only one witness had made a statement like those, I would never have bothered to write the article. But there were three - Connally, Wade and Nolan, whose recollections were mutually corroborative.

The "gurney" term, IMO, removes all possible doubt. Without knowing Connally's story, the notion that this bullet came from a gurney, makes no sense at all. It is 100% non-intuitive. The odds that just Nolan and Wade would suffer identical illusions or false memories of being told such a thing, is beyond calculation.

To support the FBI's story, you must believe that they not only suffered identical delusions about a "gurney", they had to both suffer identical memory failures related to the nurse claiming that she had a whole bullet, rather than 4 almost microscopic fragments from Connally's wrist.

Either that, or you must assume that Bell lied to the district attorney and one police officer.

In fact, Bell flatly denied the FBI report which falsely claimed that she told them, she passed a single "fragment" to officer Nolan. She obviously did not. And the FBI also lied about the number of items in the envelope, for the equally obvious reason that Nolan's envelope contained one item.

Think about it. No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
Alternative explanations have been provided which you have ignored or simply dismissed. Repeating your claims again -- which source back to hearsay and/or recollections 15, 30, or 49 years after the fact -- don't make them more convincing. Sorry, Bob. You don't get put a couple of hearsay recollections on a pike, parade around town, and declare yourself the winner.

And you most certainly don't get to dismiss the hard evidence like the bullet found in Parkland which became famous as "CE399" or the two large fragments found in the limo, merely because they are inconvenient to your beliefs and you believe the hearsay from decades later over the first-day evidence.

But of course, that's exactly what you're doing.

And that's why you're making no headway here. No one who knows anything about human memory would think a 30-year recollection is more valuable or important than hard evidence gathered the first day. No one who knows anything about hearsay would credit a 49-year-later recollection of hearsay over the physical evidence.

But given a choice, you select the hearsay and the decades-later recollection every time over the hard evidence.

That methodology is not in any criminology text I ever saw. Can you cite one criminology text that says that's the best way to solve a crime? What 30 or more years, interview the witnesses, and credit their recollections and the hearsay they remember?

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 11th September 2015, 03:22 PM   #216
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Think about it. No one heard the shot at 223, so it COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
Sorry, simply repeating unproven statements doesn't make them more true. The above is simply another example of you utilizing the LOGICAL FALLACY of Begging the Question.

Prove *nobody* -- out of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who testified to the Warren Commission or gave statements to the Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, or Sheriff's Office -- heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223 - allowing the time for the sound from the rifle to reach their ears.

Of course you can't. And I'd be willing to wager you won't even try. It's a claim you can't support. But it's one of the central tenets of your "There was another shot at Z285!" screed.

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 11th September 2015, 03:37 PM   #217
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,712
If you can count to three you can understand what happened in Dallas that day.

I'm sure if it were possible to talk to everybody there that day you would find people who heard all three shots, and maybe even people who heard more.

It doesn't matter.

Only 3 shots were fired, and we know where they went.

The second shot has successfully been recreated with similar outcome to the bullet.

No other bullets have been found in Dealey Plaza, even with Dallas' crime rate.

The backdrop to the Warren Commission, and the HSCA are secondary issues. The better word for them is "Sideshow". You have to work backward from the crime scene. We have the bodies, we have the weapon, we have the bullets, and we have a number of 8mm films, 2 showing the assassination.

We have one suspect we can match to the weapon, the location, the capability to make the shots, and conduct before and after the shooting consistent with guilt of this specific crime. Nobody has credibly linked him to anyone else, or any other political or criminal organization.

The Kabuki Theater of the JFK CTs, of which I was an active believer for 27 years, has spun up a long list of suspects all dependent on the CT-loon's political leanings. Almost each time there is not direct evidence, just claims backed up with hearsay of dubious sources.

Most of them were better theories than this one.

With each new archive file declassified and released the story has yet to change. Our changing relationship with Cuba should see the release of more documents over the next few years, none of them will place a second shooter in Dallas in November, 1963.
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 11th September 2015, 04:55 PM   #218
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I can remember 11/22/63 quite well and I absolutely assure you that none of my memories are delusions.
Yes, I know you can assure me of that. But as it is over 50 years ago, you really don't have any original memories stored away in your brain. Neither do I. That's because the average cell in the human body lasts only about seven years. So you've gone through about seven or eight iterations of every brain cell since the assassination. And with each iteration, errors get introduced. That's just how the biology works.

And exactly how do you know none of your memories of 11/22/63 are false memories? You don't. You simply remember something, but just because you remember it, doesn't mean it's real. You simply believe it's real because you remember it.

But that's exactly what I was describing about a trip to a place with my wife in the Poconos last month, where our previous trip to the same place was 30 years earlier. We both remembered some things differently. I understood why. False memories are real, and have been demonstrated in experiments. Some of these experiments go back decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

For example:

In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted a study to investigate the effects of language on the development of false memory. The experiment involved two separate studies. In the first test, forty-five participants were randomly assigned to watch different videos of a car accident, in which separate videos had shown collisions at 20 miles per hour, 30 miles per hour, and 40 miles per hour. Afterwards, participants filled out a survey. The survey asked the question, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” The question always asked the same thing, except the verb used to describe the collision varied. Rather than smashed, other verbs used included: bumped, collided, hit, or contacted. Participants estimated collisions of all speeds to average between 35 miles per hour to just below 40 miles per hour. If actual speed were the main factor in estimate, it could be assumed that participants would have lower estimates for lower speed collisions. Instead, the word being used to describe the collision seemed to better predict the estimate in speed rather than the speed itself.[6]

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_effect

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

False memories are real, and you are not immune. Neither are your witnesses from 15, 30, or 49 years after the assassination. That's just the way the world works, Robert. Get used to it.

The earlier the testimony, the better. The hard evidence is the best eye-witness, because it doesn't suffer from misperceptions, or false memories, or incorporating information learned later into the memory of the event, or ego, or the need to please an interviewer, or project an air of confidence where one might not be appropriate. For all these reasons and more, it's understood eyewitnesses are not the best place to start, and it's understood that recollections from 15, 30, or 49 years after the event are even worse.

You cited testimony from the ARRB at one point. But you ignore the key point that the Executive Director and General Counsel said he learned from the ARRB hearings. He said this in a speech at Stanford:

"The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony.

I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable.


You ignore the issues of memory entirely, to the point where you even cite 30-year-later or 49-year-later recollections of hearsay!

And the ARRB Final Report noted this about eyewitness testimony:

The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory.

All persons. Including all the witnesses you wish to cite and yes, Robert Harris himself.

Whether he chooses to believe it or not. And regardless of any assurances he might offer to the contrary.

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 11th September 2015, 09:05 PM   #219
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Every book and article in the Library of Congress is "hearsay".
By that wishefully broad definition, everything you write is also hearsay. Shall we therefore dismiss it?

Quote:
The term has been grossly abused by Hank...
No. The dictionaries you dismiss as "hearsay" define it as information received from other people which cannot be corroborated. That important qualification is what separates the real concept of hearsay from your silly straw man.

Quote:
This is an historically important issue. It deserves serious, honest discussion, grounded solidly in reality and without a lot of junior high school debate tactics.
It's an historically important issue that has been studied to death over several decades with no author being able to displace the conventional narrative despite hundreds of thousands of frantic, handwaving words offered up.

Your arguments are firmly rooted in your own preconceptions, assumptions, opinions, judgments, and extrapolations. The efforts you dismiss as "junior high school debate tactics" are in fact aimed at showing you their true nature.
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 12th September 2015, 01:40 AM   #220
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,922
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What a preposterous argument! Of course a silenced weapon was used. The witnesses were nearly unanimous that they only heard one of the early shots. And John Connally confirmed that beyond all reasonable doubt, because he heard the shot at 160 and then only FELT the next one, which hit him at 223.

THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.
So it is not possible that that reason nobody heard shots other than Oswald's is because there were no shots other than Oswald's?

So it is not possible that Connally's memories suffers exactly the same limitations as any other human?

It is not possible, that like other victims of serious wounds, Connally simply did not feel his wound immediately, through the adrenaline, shock, and confusion?

Well, there certainly are things that are not possible.

Multiple bullets being fired without leaving a physical trace on the world is one. Once again: Produce evidence there were bullets, before you argue if they are, or are not, possible explanations for your theory.
__________________
@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 12th September 2015, 01:56 AM   #221
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,922
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That methodology is not in any criminology text I ever saw. Can you cite one criminology text that says that's the best way to solve a crime? What 30 or more years, interview the witnesses, and credit their recollections and the hearsay they remember?

Hank
No is it good practise as a matter of history.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out that the sceptics are going out of their way to offer help here. We keep telling Robert exactly what it will take to convince us.

And yet, he seems to determine to argue the stuff we keep pointing out won't convince us. Even when it is explained exactly why his arguments do not reach the right standard.

I know it is incredibly difficult to step away from something you already decided was fact, but that is exactly what you have to do to convince somebody else. Especially a sceptic who will want objective evidence.

The opinion of somebody that an envelope looks like it has letter fragments on it, or that people look startled, is not evidence, and is not convincing. But at the moment, that is all we are offered. And frankly, saying something more often does not make it more true.
__________________
@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 12th September 2015, 06:26 AM   #222
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yes, I know you can assure me of that. But as it is over 50 years ago, you really don't have any original memories stored away in your brain.
Of course I do, just like pretty much everyone who was around on 11/22/63 and old enough to know what was going on then.

I was 15 at the time and sitting in the auditorium, waiting for a pep rally, which would never begin that day. When the announcement was made over the intercom, a lot of the girls began to cry and probably a few of the boys. I know the girl behind me who was laying on a gurney began to cry too.

Oh wait! That was just a delusion. No one was on a gurney then.

At our last reunion a few years ago, my old friend, Bruce Diddlewhacker also said that girl was lying on a gurney and so did the school principal, old Mr. Picknitter.

But when we looked at photos of that area, nobody was on a gurney!

I guess that's pretty normal though, isn't it?

You probably had lots of those "gurney" delusions too.

Now Hank, if you don't believe my story, then why would you believe the equally preposterous notion that Governor Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan and one nurse, all suffered the same delusion that I and my imaginary associates suffered?

And your argument that witnesses can't remember back more than 7 years because their brain cells are replaced, sets an all new standard in craziness. When brain cells are replaced, the memory information is copied back into them, identical to the original.

Is there anyone here who doesn't still remember his multiplication tables or what his first girl (or boy) friend looked like?

Those witnesses were mutually corroborative. The only one who went with the intuitive explanation, that the bullet was recovered in surgery, was Bill Stinson. But even he corroborates the others, since the only way he could have come to that belief was, based on what that nurse said.

And Nolan confirmed that he was right there with him when it happened. So he had to have heard her describe a single, whole bullet.

That nurse couldn't have been Audrey Bell. Bell's own statements prove that beyond any doubt. And the notion that she just forgot that she placed four very tiny particles in that envelope is ridiculous.
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 12th September 2015, 07:25 AM   #223
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Alternately, no one heard the "shot" at 223 because there was no shot.

We have evidence for the three from LHO. No evidence for any other shots - you've presented your opinion that several other shots were made by a silenced rifle of unknown calibre, from an unknown location, that failed to hit anything, based on your interpretation of people's reactions in a silent film.
Bob is playing a shell game here, so you have to be careful how you respond. He's arguing for an imaginary heard shot at Z285 and arguing that the known shot at Z223 (which we can see in the Zfilm injured two men) was inaudible.

But there most definitely was a shot at Z223. And it was heard. Bob argues this one was silent and the imaginary one at Z285 was not heard, because if he argued the one at Z223 was heard and the imaginary one at Z285 was not heard, well, he'd be arguing for pink unicorns.


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 12th September 2015, 07:31 AM   #224
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Nonsense, I discussed Braden many times in this forum and you know it.

I have responded many times and have gone into great detail about why I suspect Braden. Besides the fact that he was in arguably, the best sniper location in Dealey Plaza, he had connections with Carlos Marcello and David Ferrie, and was in the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination.

He also lied in his HSCA testimony, claiming that he was with Roger Carol, his parole officer. Carol of course, flatly denied his alibi. In addition to that, I have posted evidence which suggests that a portion of the blinds in a particular, third floor (the floor Braden was on) window in the Daltex, may have been cut out to allow a sniper there to remain unseen. I demonstrate this in the beginning of this presentation.
You have made a number of assertions (which you were kind enough to repeat above) but have provided no evidence for those assertions. Please provide the evidence for the assertions bolded above. We can move on from there.

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 12th September 2015, 08:32 AM   #225
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
We both know that it was possible to acquire or build a suppressed rifle in 1963. As for your "scorecard", it looks pretty empty to me, in regard to answering the most important questions. These are some of the questions that you've been evading. Please answer.

Why was it that most witnesses only heard one of the early shots?
Loaded question.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why did John Connally hear one shot, but not the next one that hit him?
Loaded question.


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?
Loaded question.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why do we see numerous, happy smiling faces in the Altgens photo, snapped at frame 255, if two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots have already been fired?
Loaded question.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why was there no screaming, diving to the ground, or Secret Service agents in action, until AFTER frame 285??
Loaded question.


You do understand why loaded questions aren't good form, don't you?

A loaded question is when you asked a question that had a presumption built into it... Like, "Do you still beat your wife, Hank?"

Let's look at the first question you ask in more detail: "Why did John Connally hear one shot, but not the next one that hit him?"

The presumption is that there were two early shots, the second of which hit Connally, and then some later ones that missed the car or killed the President), but you have yet to explain why three of the men either in or closest to the limo heard only two in total... Connally heard two, Clint Hill heard two, and Roy Kellerman heard two. Jackie Kennedy also only heard two.

Mrs. Kennedy: But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember. And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.

Gov Connally: Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.


Etc. etc. You never did even come close to explaining why the time estimates for the men in the car was four to five seconds for all the shots. As I've noted repeatedly, the time frame from a shot at Z223 to a shot at Z313 is 4.9 seconds. which is extremely close to their estimates. So you want to argue these are good witnesses, but you ignore everything they said that doesn't fit your agenda.

They only heard two of the four, five, six, seven, or more shots you've alluded to. Their time estimates for the shots was just 45% of the time you've alleged, from your earliest suggested shot to the last (Z130 to Z335).

You argue that I'm calling the witnesses liars, but I never made that argument. You did by citing Doug Thompson's article from over a decade after Connally's death, and 24 years after the supposed conversation. In that recollection of hearsay that comprises Thompson's 2006 article about his recollection of a 1982 conversation, Thompson says Connally told Thompson he (Connally) withheld the truth of what he believed from the country. This is YOUR witness.

Quote:
I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy? "Absolutely not," Connolly [sic] 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."
...
John Connolly [sic] felt he served his country best by concealing his doubts about the Warren Commission's whitewash...
.
Again, this is an article YOU cited. In it, if you accept the claims as true, Connally says he was willing to withhold information from the country to serve what he felt free to define as the country's best interests. I didn't say that. Your cited article says that.

Now, given Connally's admissions above, please tell us why you're citing Connally's testimony, since he admitted he felt he was justified in withholding the truth from the country. Or, just admit the article is valueless, as it's a recollection of hearsay 26 years after the conversation, published over 12 years after Connally's death, and long after Connally was no longer available to affirm or deny the substance of the claims therein. But you can't have it both ways.

You're cherry-picking your data, ignoring contrary evidence, utilizing hearsay and decades-later recollections, and employing logical fallacies repeatedly to force your square peg of a conspiracy theory into the round hole of the actual shooting by one lone man with a gun and a grudge, Lee Harvey Oswald.

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 12th September 2015, 10:06 AM   #226
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You don't seem to understand the way memory works. Its been shown that memory is very indistinct. It's been shown that people will revise their memories based on what others believe.
Which, of course, is why we interview witnesses separately and why, in some courts, a witness is not allowed to hear the testimony of other witnesses.

Other important aspects of memory include the post-constructed narrative and interviewer alignment. The sensory input of a happenstance event gets woven into a narrative, but not the rote "playback" narrative of the actual events such as a camera would record. We don't have good time perception in happenstance events, nor perfect recall of the sensory experiences -- sight, sound, touch. The narrative is constructed later, as a sort of scrapbook into which recollections of sensation are placed. And most importantly, the narrative is what we think happened, not what actually happened.

This contrived narrative then becomes a perceptual filter that causes the witness to selectively remember only the things that fit the coherent narrative. It also causes the witness to manufacture recollections that help make the narrative continuous and cogent. We "remember" that something happened because our inner narrative requires it to have happened in order to make the story sensible. This is our high-order intellect trying to make sense out of what we have seen. The more we recite this narrative upon request, the more solidified it becomes.

Interviewer alignment is simple: witnesses will at times alter their testimony to align with what they think the interviewer wants to hear. It's one of the principles behind the good-cop, bad-cop routine and why it often leads to misleading testimony and false confessions. For example, if an interviewer introduces himself to a witness as a writer for a well-published UFO magazine, the witness to some mysterious aerial event is more likely to embellish the story in a way that amps up the UFO-ish aspects of it.

And just to underscore...

Quote:
These are all principles of psychology and neurology that have been tested and proven time and again.

Yet, because they run counter to what you wish were the truth, you discount them.
Indeed the fringe relies quite heavily on common misconceptions of memory mechanics and tries to dismiss as sophistry any attempt to invoke the science to examine the reliability of testimony. It's a frustrating paradox because the JFK conspiracy theorists especially make such heavy use of eyewitness testimony. Yet so very few of them understand what attends that kind of evidence.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2015, 02:50 PM   #227
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey View Post
How can you know this?
Under the heading "delusion," though it is really not le mot juste
Well of course it is. Each of those men presented very detailed, first person dialogues of what happened that day.

If they were wrong, these could not have been simple errors. They would have been massive delusions. It is one thing to forget say, the time that you heard about the attack. But it is quite another to fabricate an entire conversation.

And the fact that their "delusions" were virtually identical, right down to the totally nonintuitive recollections related to a whole bullet coming from Connally's "gurney", makes it preposterous to write this off as memory farts.

And what about supervisor Bell? Did she also suffer delusions?

If so, it must have happened within less than 24 hours after she gave her fragments to the FBI. Otherwise, why would she have told the FBI on the morning of 11/23/63, that her envelope contained only a single "fragment"?

Strange coincidence eh, that that is exactly the number of items that Nolan's envelope contained.
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 12th September 2015, 02:58 PM   #228
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
.BTW, when are you going to post a retraction for your false accusation that Connally said he never looked back at JFK, trying to make it appear that he lied, when he said in his book that he did?
Let's look again at Connally's sworn testimony, shall we?

"...again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots...
...
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them."


Connally said he never saw the President once the shooting started in his testimony. He said he never saw the President after the first shot, after the second shot, or after the third shot.

I don't know how much clearer he could be. You ignore his testimony on this point, even after it's been pointed out to you (and I pointed this out previously).

In his book, however, three decades later, he says he saw the President clutch his throat:

""The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat."

You credit this three-decade later statement (and others) from his ghost-written autobiography.

But the two statements contradict each other, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Choose one...

Which one reflects what honestly happened to Connally on 11/22/63?

Did he see the President clutch his throat or not?

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 12th September 2015, 03:18 PM   #229
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Sorry, simply repeating unproven statements doesn't make them more true.
Except that I HAVE PROVEN IT, which why you have evaded my questions an argument related to this issue, since I first began to post here.

Quote:
The above is simply another example of you utilizing the LOGICAL FALLACY of Begging the Question.
No, it's "simply another example" of you evading the facts and evidence. You will prove that in the next paragraph.

Quote:
Prove *nobody* -- out of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who testified to the Warren Commission or gave statements to the Secret Service, Dallas Police, FBI, or Sheriff's Office -- heard a shot at Zapruder frame 223 - allowing the time for the sound from the rifle to reach their ears.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think that because there might have been a tiny minority who contradicted all the others, that this trumps not only the nearly unanimous statements of most other witnesses that day, including the nonvictims in the limo, but the fact that we see distinct, highly visible startle reactions following 285 and 313, that never occurred following the early shots.

Is that REALLY your position?

For the dozenth or so times, why don't you explain why we don't see anything like this, following 160 and 223?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Why don't we see Kellerman doing this kind of thing?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Reactions to the early shots began in the range of before 170 to about 270. The reactions following 285 and 313, began respectively, within windows of no more than 3 frames. Do you dispute that?

The limo was closer to Oswald when the early shots were fired than the later ones. They should have been MORE startled than they were to the later one.

And why do you evade the fact that the most important parts of Mrs. Connally can be fully corroborated in the Zapruder film. Do you deny that shortly after looking back at JFK, she can be seen snapping back to her husband and pulling him back to her?

Does it bother you in the slightest, that she testified that she did that, in reaction to the second shot she had just heard, or the fact that she carried out those actions beginning in the same 1/6th of a second that the others began to react in the limo??

Was she a liar too, Hank? Was she suffering from a delusion, thinking that she heard a gunshot that never happened? And isn't it amazing that the others who ducked, spun around, etc, all suffered from the same delusion at precisely the same instant?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Quote:
Of course you can't.
Of course not, which is why I never made such a claim. Why do you continue to misrepresent me and then attack your own fabrications:-)

Answer the questions Hank.

Quote:
And I'd be willing to wager you won't even try. It's a claim you can't support. But it's one of the central tenets of your "There was another shot at Z285!" screed.
No it's not. I have been trying for a long time to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point in time, I have to conclude that these endless misrepresentations are deliberate.
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 12th September 2015, 03:20 PM   #230
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BT George View Post
Yes. I meant the source of the shots.
I'm sure it was an honest oversight, but you still haven't answer my question.

What do you think was the cause of these reactions?

http://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 12th September 2015, 03:38 PM   #231
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I have long lost track of the number of times you have misrepresented me and misrepresented key witnesses.
Let me help you out then. That number would be zero (0).

Zilch. Zip. Nada. Nothing. A void.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
You might even want to consider that you've played the "liar liar" card to the point where it's become more of a joke than an argument.
You might want to acknowledge I've pointed out previously these are only straw man versions of my arguments, and that I've never accused anyone of lying in any of my posts on this forum. I have pointed out the issues with 30-year-later or 49-year-later recollections of hearsay, which you did mutate into me claiming they were lying.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
This is not an either/or proposition.
I never said it was. I challenged you to provide evidence implicating Braden anywhere near the quantity of evidence amassed against Oswald. You have thus far punted ever time. Including this response I am quoting now, that makes 11 times you've failed to provide any evidence. Let me remind you your allegations and assertions are not evidence. You've post those allegations quite a few times... but no evidence to support them. I'm still looking for that evidence.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
By far, the most likely conclusion is that both were involved.
Then why the reticence to provide the evidence implicating Braden?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Technically speaking however, you cannot prove that Oswald fired his rifle that day, just as I cannot absolutely prove that Braden was involved in the assassination.
I provided evidence Oswald's rifle was involved through the direct testimony of the witnesses and experts involved. I can provide far more. You have provided nothing implicating Braden. Nothing. And of course, we should note the varying levels of guilt here you're claiming: "evidence that Oswald fired his rifle" vs. "evidence was involved at all". I think you're admitting the evidence is overwhelming Oswald was involved. I'm looking for the evidence Braden was involved. And as you just admitted, you can't prove that. As I thought, you have no evidence implicating Braden.

Thank you.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
BTW, you are familiar with Dallas chief of police, Jesse Curry's statement to the Dallas Morning News, are you not?

"I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
The LOGICAL FALLACY known as a RED HERRING. That is, you're changing the subject. The subject isn't who believes what, and citing what Curry said is meaningless to that point. The subject, and the challenge, is for you to provide the evidence implicating Braden in the assassination. I've asked 11 times now.

Arguing for Oswald's apparent innocence, as you're now doing above, is merely a distraction, especially after you just argued "By far, the most likely conclusion is that both were involved." So why are you quoting Curry's claim about whether Oswald fired any shots?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Oh wait! The article must be a lie, since it is mere "hearsay"
Another straw man argument and an attempt to put words in my mouth before I even responded.

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 12th September 2015, 04:29 PM   #232
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
[quote=Robert Harris;10867203]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.[quote]

Well, that sums up the problem here perfectly.

Or almost perfectly.

According to you, after nearly 50 years, Bobby Nolan got the name of Stinson wrong, which should illustrate the issue of utilizing 30-year-later or 49-year-later recollections nicely.

But no, you summarize that as "he almost remembered the guy's name perfectly"... in other words, he got it wrong. That's the issue in a nutshell, Bob.

And then there's this:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Sorry Hank. "Close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
Nothing in there about recollections after 49 years.

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 12th September 2015, 04:37 PM   #233
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
The term has been grossly abused by Hank, who uses it as a tool to attack witnesses who are otherwise, beyond beyond reproach. For example, he says we should not trust the Dallas Morning News' published interview of District Attorney, Henry Wade, because it is "hearsay".
Nope. Never said that. That's a gross distortion of what I did say. Quote and rebut my exact words, Robert, not the straw man arguments you like to spear.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
He likewise says that Connally's own autobiography cannot be trusted because it too, is "hearsay". Of course, he combines that with his "liar, liar" accusations, although he can't seem to make up his mind, whether Connally was the liar, or his writer, neither of whom, he can prove have ever lied about ANYTHING throughout their entire lives. And god knows, he has tried:-)
Nope. Never said that. That's a gross distortion of what I did say. Quote and rebut my exact words, Robert, not the straw man arguments you like to spear.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
t is beyond insane to claim that the Governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney, a police officer and the nurse who recovered the bullet, all coincidentally, fabricated false delusions ...
Nope. Never said that. That's a gross distortion of what I did say. Quote and rebut my exact words, Robert, not the straw man arguments you like to spear.

Of course, you won't.

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 12th September 2015, 04:55 PM   #234
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
When I was specifically asked about when shots were fired, I described the ones that were certain, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. I added that there may have been one prior to 133, which is exactly what nutter spokesman, Max Holland claims and may have been one (not two) after 313. In fact, I think that final one was a 90 percenter.
Nobody cares what Max Holland thinks. You repeatedly invoke a claim by somebody or other, apparently thinking that should be persuasive. It's not. It never will be (you invoked a claim by Chief Curry about Oswald in another post).

What does the evidence indicate, and how did you arrive at the conclusion that there may have been a shot prior to 133? You don't say.



But instead of attacking me based on you your dislike of the number of shots...[/quote]

I have not attacked you. I have attacked your arguments and shown how they are faulty. Repeatedly.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...don't you think it would be better to address the question of whether I am correct or not?
I have. How many people, and what percentage of the total witnesses heard more than three shots, Robert? Did more people report hearing two shots, or four or more?

You have a scenario involving anywhere from four to seven shots, and to explain away the discrepancy, you have to invoke silenced weapons and shooters that no one saw before, during, or after the shooting, utilizing weapons that no one saw or heard before, during, or after the shooting, firing bullets that no one saw, before, during, or after the shooting. Based on your suppositions of some movements in the car and on hearsay and recollections from decades after the fact. At one point you even appeared to argue that the fact that nobody saw these shooters was evidence of their existence.

Sorry, I don't find it close to persuasive, for the reasons mentioned in prior posts. You might as well be arguing for pink unicorns having a plot against the President. Nobody, I remind you, saw them in Dealey Plaza either. Nobody saw them fire any weapons. Nobody saw them arrive in Dealey Plaza or leave Dealey Plaza. There is just as much evidence for pink unicorns as there is for your mysterious shooters.

None.

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 12th September 2015, 05:19 PM   #235
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You don't seem to understand the way memory works.
I think I do. This same argument has been thrown at me more times that I can count, over the years.

Quote:
Its been shown that memory is very indistinct. It's been shown that people will revise their memories based on what others believe.
We must not generalize. As in any other controversy, the devil is in the details. Connally, Nolan, Wade and Audrey Bell presented very detailed first person narratives of what happened, then.

If they were all wrong, then their failings were not just errors. They were delusions, conjuring up false conversations or imaging totally different conversations than actually actually took place.

Quote:
This, of course, is an important evolutionary development. On the one hand, the consensus is probably closer to the truth than any one memory.
Except when the consensus proves that your theory is wrong, as in the consensus of witnesses who heard a sequence of shots which totally contradicts the LN theory, making it impossible that Oswald fired all of them.

Do I need to repeat the laundry list of verifiable facts, which prove that to be true? Have you noticed that the handful of members who pretend that I have not presented such proof, are never willing to address my claims?

And the consensus at Parkland, which includes not just Connally, Nolan, Wade, Stinson and Bell, but also the four men who examined the Tomlinson bullet and refused to confirm that it was CE399. O.P. Wright, and ex police officer was very specific that the original had a sharper tip than ce399.

And the two men who stated that they scratched their initials into the Tomlinson bullet as they were required to do. Where are those initials? Why are the ONLY initials on that bullet, from men at the FBI labs in Washington?

Johnsen and Todd HAD to mark that bullet. Oswald was still alive then, so the integrity of the chain of possession had to be maintained.

Quote:
Add to that the fact that we, as a social species, really like to agree with each other. And a single shared memory helps reinforce social bonds.
When I contacted Nolan, I was a taken aback when he stated that the nurse said the bullet came from Connally's "gurney", exactly as Wade had said. So, I specifically asked him if he had discussed this with Wade or Connally. He said he had never spoken with either of them.

I also asked if he had read Wade's interview or Connally's book, or was aware of their statements about this. He said no.

I cannot prove that Wade was not influenced by Connally, but if that had been the case, don't you think his narrative would have begun with something like, "Connally told me...", rather than this? Please read it carefully.

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.


Wade's statements were either the truth, a lie, or a massive delusion. If it wasn't for the corroborations by Connally and Nolan, I would have only have considered it a 90 percenter that he was right.

Quote:
These are all principles of psychology and neurology that have been tested and proven time and again.
Find a single psychologist or neurologist who will agree with you, under those circumstances. Be sure he is not a JFK conspiracy buff, pro or con, in fact, change the names so that he will not associate it with the JFK case.

Give me one dollar for every one who laughs at your argument and I will give you fifty for every one who agrees.

Quote:
Yet, because they run counter to what you wish were the truth, you discount them.
I'm disappointed that you think you have to make this about me, when there is so much verifiable evidence that you have failed to discuss.

And have you noticed that without exception, your attacks are 100% nonspecific and ambiguous? Of course, they always are when I deal with LN advocates, who need to divert the conversation away from the facts and evidence which prove them wrong.

I expected better from "skeptics", who I thought would be objective and totally focused on the evidence.
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 12th September 2015, 06:56 PM   #236
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hey! I see that reinforcements have arrived

What do you think was the cause of these reactions?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
I think the people in the car are reacting to Oswald shooting at them. In my non-expert opinion, they are reacting to the Oswald's second shot that went through JFK and Connally. What, in your non-expert opinion, are they reacting to?

And you do realize that neither of our non-expert opinions amount to a hill of beans as compared to all the physical evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots, hitting with two of them, at JFK on 11/22/63, right?
cmikes 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 12th September 2015, 08:36 PM   #237
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Well of course it is. Each of those men presented very detailed, first person dialogues of what happened that day.
Bob, I asked you (rhetorically) to explain this statement:
"I can remember 11/22/63 quite well and I absolutely assure you that none of my memories are delusions."

My point is that you can't know anything of the sort.
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 12th September 2015, 08:47 PM   #238
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
All very good points. I believe that one of the reasons that the conspiracy theorists focus so much on witness statements is that it gives them more material to misinterpret. Given the limits of human memory, if a witness gives multiple statements, especially statements separated by years or decades, they're going to have conflicts. Notice how Harris won't use Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission or his testimony to the HSCA to try and support his "four magic bullets" theory, but only Connally's hearsay statement to his ghost writer thirty years after the fact. Conspiracy theorists only accept statements that can be made to support their particular theory. If Connally had testified before the Warren Commission that he remembered a bullet being picked up off the floor but later changed his story thirty years later to claim it hadn't happened, does anyone have any doubts as to which version that Robert would accept?

One thing about Mark Lane, however. I've always, perhaps foolishly, been inclined to cut him a little slack over Rush to Judgement. It's clear that he approached the whole case as a defense attorney from the start and defense attorneys aren't interested in the truth, especially when their clients are guilty as sin. It's clear, though, that he should have made more open in his book that it was written strictly as a defense of Oswald and not as any attempt to find historical fact. Which is a good thing, because Lane wouldn't know a historical fact if it bit him on the ass.
cmikes 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 12th September 2015, 09:07 PM   #239
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Find a single psychologist or neurologist who will agree with you, under those circumstances.
Let's start with Elizabeth Loftus. And actually we could almost end with her, since her life's work (several decades worth) pretty much trashes every single aspect of your belief about eyewitness testimony. She wrote the book -- several, actually -- on the subject. Let me know when you've finished reading the several feet of shelf space she's contributed to the field.

Also, you eke a lot of mileage out of Landis & Hunt. William Hunt was quite alive and quite still practicing psychology when the Warren Commission sat. Can you explain why Hunt wasn't called to testify about this miraculous evidence you seem to have discovered, based on his work? Are you sure you're a worthy protege?

Quote:
I expected better from "skeptics"...
This isn't about you.
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 12th September 2015, 11:16 PM   #240
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,908
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What is "hearsay"?

The Encyclopedia Britannica is "hearsay".

Websters abridged and unabridged dictionaries are "hearsay".

Every book and article in the Library of Congress is "hearsay".

The Warren Commission and HSCA reports, which were published in book form, are also "hearsay".

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 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.

Primary sources created after the fact may be significantly corrupted by the variability of memory. 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. This cannot be true. Custer had cut his hair short just before the battle. Yet she remembered it.

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. Added to that are the biases of the reporter. 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?

The delayed secondary source adds all these problems together and then multiplies them by the all the problems that exist with memory.

However, the tertiary source is the worst of all. This is a source who learned a story through the words of others writing years after they were told things by the primary actors. When are tertiary sources appropriate? When we have absolutely nothing else to go on. Almost all of our knowledge of famous ancient rulers is tertiary.

The goal of the historian is to assemble the best sources. It is not to develop a theory and then find sources that bolster it.

Such is what you are doing.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 11:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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