The JFK case - another approach

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7628
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:49 pm

I was still sort of waiting for your agreement/comment on police lies during interrogations and the probably intent in their continuing to use Ouija boards - err, polygraph machines in interrogation.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:50 pm

TJrandom wrote:I was still sort of waiting for your agreement/comment on police lies during interrogations and the probably intent in their continuing to use Ouija boards - err, polygraph machines in interrogation.

Agreement on what? Your citations didn't even mention polygraphs, although I'm sure you can find people who don't like them.

But I prefer objective data over subjective. This is from:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 29637.html

"numerous independent tests have indicated an accuracy rate in the 80-90% range."

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-warn ... 22976.html

"Under the right circumstances and with a skilled certified examiner, the polygraph can be very accurate at detecting deception"

And most of the fails come from perps who manage to relax themselves enough to hide their deception. So, it is highly unlikely that Ruby's multiple, simultaneous signs of deception were wrong. Much more importantly, you are ignoring the main point of my article, which is that the FBI examiner, who obviously does believe that polygraphs are accurate, went to great lengths to hide the evidence that Ruby lied when he denied involvement in the conspiracy.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:40 pm

Robert, I can look for sources later, but police are not in fact experts polygraphs. They administer and use them, in many cases, but they're not experts on them -- psychologists are. Increasingly over the last several decades polygraph tests have been shown to be highly inaccurate and inappropriate for the justice system. It's just one of those weird holdouts from an earlier period in our scientific understanding about human behaviour, and we've come further than that. The same is true for eye-witness testimony. Among the current justice system, eye witness testimony generally remains one of the most apparently reliable methods to ensure conviction, yet psychologists have repeatedly reported on just how unreliable eye witness testimony actually is, and go so far as to argue that eye witness testimony should, in fact, be entirely dismissed from the courtroom.

There are lots of studies on both of these issues, which again I can cite later if you require, once I have time, though a quick Google scholar search will find you plenty in the meantime, I'm sure. The short answer is that the only really reliable evidence is physical evidence, so that's what we should rely on.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:00 pm

You seem to want to change the subject of this thread, which is the JFK assassination. The fact that the FBI covered up evidence that Ruby lied when he denied being part of the conspiracy, is just one of countless others facts which prove that Oswald did not act alone.

I am not here to lobby for polygraphs, but what we know for certain is, that after Ruby denied participation in the crime, he immediately exhibited several reactions which have always been associated with deception. Looking at the printout of the test, this is what the HSCA polygraph panel concluded.

"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GSR reaction in test series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial relevant question."


It is true, that some perps are able to control their responses and hide their lies, but fortunately for those of us who care about this crime, Ruby was not one of them.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:05 pm

Robert Harris wrote:You seem to want to change the subject of this thread, which is the JFK assassination. The fact that the FBI covered up evidence that Ruby lied when he denied being part of the conspiracy, is just one of countless others facts which prove that Oswald did not act alone.

That's fair enough, and I don't intend to bog your argument down over trivialities while evading the main thrust of your points. I'm merely commenting for now to reserve this thread in my list and because I happen to have specific knowledge of the effectiveness of polygraphs, eye witness testimony, and so on that I could quickly comment on. In short: they're wholly unreliable, and if your argument depends on them, then you may experience difficulty proving your point (certainly here, anyway). By the way, my concerns are not based on people being able to intentionally manipulate polygraphs; it's based on the tests themselves being inaccurate by their very nature. Breathing, pulse, etc. are not reliable indicators of honesty or deception.

As far as I'm concerned, any argument that is contingent on eye-witness testimony or polygraphs, I would recommend throwing out, especially regarding something so easily manipulable as after-the fact memory on number of gun shots. We know that such memories can be easily manipulated, whether by corroborating accounts with fellow witnesses, media reporting or simply misremembering. If the argument stands on its own without reference to either of those things, and instead (and especially) relies on physical evidence, then that's a much stronger argument. I'll leave it at that.

I didn't remark on anything else you've said yet because that requires a little more time to devote than I am able to provide at this moment.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:23 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:You seem to want to change the subject of this thread, which is the JFK assassination. The fact that the FBI covered up evidence that Ruby lied when he denied being part of the conspiracy, is just one of countless others facts which prove that Oswald did not act alone.

That's fair enough, and I don't intend to bog your argument down over trivialities while evading the main thrust of your points. I'm merely commenting for now to reserve this thread in my list and because I happen to have specific knowledge of the effectiveness of polygraphs, eye witness testimony, and so on that I could quickly comment on. In short: they're wholly unreliable, and if your argument depends on them, then you may experience difficulty proving your point (certainly here, anyway). By the way, my concerns are not based on people being able to intentionally manipulate polygraphs; it's based on the tests themselves being inaccurate by their very nature. Breathing, pulse, etc. are not reliable indicators of honesty or deception.

As far as I'm concerned, any argument that is contingent on eye-witness testimony or polygraphs, I would recommend throwing out, especially regarding something so easily manipulable as after-the fact memory on number of gun shots. We know that such memories can be easily manipulated, whether by corroborating accounts with fellow witnesses, media reporting or simply misremembering. If the argument stands on its own without reference to either of those things, and instead (and especially) relies on physical evidence, then that's a much stronger argument. I'll leave it at that.

I didn't remark on anything else you've said yet because that requires a little more time to devote than I am able to provide at this moment.

Ruby's polygraph is a secondary issue, though you are mistaken about their ability to catch people lying. But that isn't the point. The point is, that the FBI, who obviously have a great deal of faith in polygraphs went to huge lengths to hide the fact that based on long established principles of polygraph operation, they should have told the WC that Ruby lied when he denied involvement in the assassination. Over 20 twenty years of researching this thing, I have found no solid evidence of CIA involvement, but massive efforts by the FBI to coverup the conspiracy. I will post more about that soon.

As for your argument about witnesses, it is true that they make errors, but I know of no other case in which so many, mistakenly claimed to have heard exactly the same thing. Reading individual testimonies, I found that law enforcement professionals were even more unanimous in supporting the 1---2-3 pattern than the others. In fact, not even one of them reported a pattern of the first two shots being closer than the last two, which is fundamental to the position of the WC and all lone nut advocates whom I am aware of.

Even more conclusive are the scientific and empirical corroborations. The Nobel prize winning scientist, Dr. Luis Alvarez identified a loud and startling noise at frame 285, which resulted in heavily blurred frames at 290-291, and caused the driver Bill Greer, to inadvertently lift his foot from the gas, causing the limo to slow down.

Now look at the startle reactions of the people in the limo with JFK. Each of them began at 290-292, in exactly the same instant that Zapruder and Greer reacted. Notice also, Bill Greer, who at the same time he was slowing the limo, was spinning around from rear to front, so rapidly that some alterationists believed (falsely of course) that Greer's turns were physically impossible.

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

Look! I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL. I get emails and pms on Youtube all the time from people suggesting screwball theories, to the point where I usually don't even consider them, which I suppose makes me a bit of a hypocrite for bitching at you guys :mrgreen: And I know that it's pointless to tell you that I'm the guy who finally got it right, since that is exactly what everyone tells you.

So all I can do is plead with you to look at the facts and evidence. This article covers the basics pretty well.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
Last edited by Robert Harris on Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7628
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:32 pm

Robert - were echoes (off of buildings, etc.) identified and eliminated from the possible causes of the startle responses and the `heard it` testimonies?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:28 pm

TJrandom wrote:Robert - were echoes (off of buildings, etc.) identified and eliminated from the possible causes of the startle responses and the `heard it` testimonies?

The HSCA conducted listening tests in Dealey Plaza, using the same model of rifle and ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. They had no problem differentiating the echoes from the gunshots.

Consider the fact that the original witnesses only heard one early shot. Obviously, they were not confused by echoes then. Much more conclusively, we can see the reactions to the first of the two closely bunched shots, which preceded the fatal headshot and so, could not have been an echo of it.

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

Those reactions which included three people dropping their heads, all began in the same 1/6th of one second, at Zapruder frames 290-292. And they were perfectly simultaneous with Zapruder's reaction at 290-291, according to Dr. Alvarez. It is particularly interesting to examine the reactions of Special agent Roy Kellerman. I break them down in this short Zapruder film segment. Keep in mind that in real time, all of those reactions were carried out within a single second.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:26 am

Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
itslarry
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:54 pm
Custom Title: lord high magistrate
Location: thebiblebelt

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby itslarry » Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:29 pm


User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:52 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:52 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.

Oswald might have been the one who actually fired the fatal head shot. If so, he couldn't have also fired the shot that preceded it, 1.5 seconds earlier.

But the reactions by Zapruder as well as the limo passengers, were less pronounced, to the 285 shot than to the one at 313, and since his weapon was at the lower end of high powered rifles, in terms of loudness, I suspect that Oswald fired the weaker of the two shots, at 285. That shot missed Kennedy and went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered, causing a tiny piece of debris to nick the cheek of James Tague and a piece of lead to smear on the Main St. curbing.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:54 pm

Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:34 am

Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:11 am

Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

No, and I probably won't.

I was simply stating what was the simplest explanation. I thought Tom-Palven's "simplest explanation" wasn't simple at all.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:21 am

Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.


That would be the simplest explanation if the CIA files on Oswald had still not been released after 50 years, which you haven't explained.
Last edited by Tom Palven on Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:18 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.


That would be the simplest explanation if the CIA files on Oswald had still not been released after 50 years, which you haven't explained.

Actually, no. You've made up a conspiracy theory based on zero information. In other words, you invented a conspiracy theory based on a lack of information. Anything else is literally simpler.

:mrgreen:
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:23 pm

Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

No, and I probably won't.

I was simply stating what was the simplest explanation. I thought Tom-Palven's "simplest explanation" wasn't simple at all.

Simplest explanation for what?

The subject of this thread was the fact that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots. If that doesn't matter enough to you, to read a few paragraphs, then why did you post in this thread?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Austin Harper » Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:28 pm

What if there were multiple shooters and they were all clones of Lee Harvey Oswald secretly created in a Soviet bunker?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:01 pm

I really don't understand why anyone questioning the official account is labelled a conspiracy theorist, dismissed a priori and called irrational (and worse). Many people over the years have questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission so such questioning alone can hardly be considered a small minority view. Anyone viewing the film of the moment Kennedy was hit for the first time has trouble understanding how a bullet that came from behind caused JFKs head to be thrown back and to the left. That alone makes questioning the official account at least reasonable...

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:05 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

No, and I probably won't.

I was simply stating what was the simplest explanation. I thought Tom-Palven's "simplest explanation" wasn't simple at all.

Simplest explanation for what?

The subject of this thread was the fact that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots. If that doesn't matter enough to you, to read a few paragraphs, then why did you post in this thread?

For giggles.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:21 pm

Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

No, and I probably won't.

I was simply stating what was the simplest explanation. I thought Tom-Palven's "simplest explanation" wasn't simple at all.

Simplest explanation for what?

The subject of this thread was the fact that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots. If that doesn't matter enough to you, to read a few paragraphs, then why did you post in this thread?

For giggles.

And how did you find humor if you didn't bother to read what the thread was about?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:51 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.

If Oswald was the one who fired the kill shot, then you are correct. Oswald was no communist. He hated JFK as much as his accomplices did.

But the question of Oswald's guilt is trivial. What matters is that he did not act alone. Have you read the article at the top of the thread?

No, and I probably won't.

I was simply stating what was the simplest explanation. I thought Tom-Palven's "simplest explanation" wasn't simple at all.

Simplest explanation for what?

The subject of this thread was the fact that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots. If that doesn't matter enough to you, to read a few paragraphs, then why did you post in this thread?

For giggles.

And how did you find humor if you didn't bother to read what the thread was about?

Sometimes, every once in a while, people can find humor if they didn't bother to read what the thread was about.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:11 am

djembeweaver wrote:I really don't understand why anyone questioning the official account is labelled a conspiracy theorist, dismissed a priori and called irrational (and worse). Many people over the years have questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission so such questioning alone can hardly be considered a small minority view. Anyone viewing the film of the moment Kennedy was hit for the first time has trouble understanding how a bullet that came from behind caused JFKs head to be thrown back and to the left. That alone makes questioning the official account at least reasonable...

The head initially went forward. I have spent a lot of time studying the shooting itself and am quite certain that that shot came from the rear. The clincher is that fragments damaged the inside of the windshield and embedded in the trim. The 313 shot is the only one that could account for that. A very good case can be made however, for a shot from the front, very soon after that one.

What does prove conspiracy is the fact that shots were fired 1.5 seconds apart and that the early shots, only one of which was even audible, did not provoke startle reactions, as we see following frames 285 and 313. There are other facts which support conspiracy, but nothing as clear and indisputable as those about the spacing and nature of the early shots. It is ridiculously obvious that they did not all come from the same rifle.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7628
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:49 pm

There being so many shootings in Texas - it takes a while for people to take heed and produce startle reactions. :)

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:42 am

TJrandom wrote:There being so many shootings in Texas - it takes a while for people to take heed and produce startle reactions. :)

I would hope that the smiley is a sign that you're not serious. The reactions to the fatal headshot at 313, began within less than a sixth of one second.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:37 am

TJrandom wrote:Robert - were echoes (off of buildings, etc.) identified and eliminated from the possible causes of the startle responses and the `heard it` testimonies?
Robert's "extra shots" have already been debunked on JREF. Here is the thread. That's why Robert is now posting here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 389&page=5

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:00 am

djembeweaver wrote:I really don't understand why anyone questioning the official account is labelled a conspiracy theorist, dismissed a priori and called irrational (and worse).

They're not. People coming up with hypotheses about conspiracies are called conspiracy theorists; those who repeat errors based on poor information that has previously been debunked thoroughly and repeatedly are dismissed a priori; those who insist they are being persecuted and silenced without just cause are called irrational (and worse).

Not understanding the very reasons for dismissing such a person is another good reason to ignore the person.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7628
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:10 am

Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:There being so many shootings in Texas - it takes a while for people to take heed and produce startle reactions. :)

I would hope that the smiley is a sign that you're not serious. The reactions to the fatal headshot at 313, began within less than a sixth of one second.


Of course serious. With so many shots being fired and some from silenced weapons too, how would anyone know which shot created which reactions?

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:06 pm

Monster wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:
Monster wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wikipedia says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former US Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, who after returning from Russia was involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at a time that the CIA was trying to murder Castro or topple his regime.

The simplest, Occam's Razor, explanation for why the CIA has refused to release several Oswald files, as supposedly required after 50 years, is that Oswald was a double agent working in their employ, and that it is just too embarrassing that a CIA operative murdered Kennedy before the CIA could do in Castro.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/top-6 ... ps-secret/

That's the simplest explanation? I think the simplest explanation is this; Oswald didn't like JFK so he killed him.


That would be the simplest explanation if the CIA files on Oswald had still not been released after 50 years, which you haven't explained.


Actually, no. You've made up a conspiracy theory based on zero information. In other words, you invented a conspiracy theory based on a lack of information. Anything else is literally simpler.

:mrgreen:



What is your opinion about the delay in revealing the Oswald files?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11 ... jfk-files/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Monster » Sun Nov 01, 2015 1:54 pm

Tom Palven wrote:What is your opinion about the delay in revealing the Oswald files?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11 ... jfk-files/

I have no opinion on it. However, you can't make up an entire narrative based on a lack of information.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:05 pm

Monster wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:What is your opinion about the delay in revealing the Oswald files?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11 ... jfk-files/

I have no opinion on it. However, you can't make up an entire narrative based on a lack of information.


I dunno. Christians, Jews, and other religionists have made up some pretty big narratives about God.

However I respect your right to your lack of opinion.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:11 pm

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:I really don't understand why anyone questioning the official account is labelled a conspiracy theorist, dismissed a priori and called irrational (and worse).

They're not. People coming up with hypotheses about conspiracies are called conspiracy theorists; those who repeat errors based on poor information that has previously been debunked thoroughly and repeatedly are dismissed a priori; those who insist they are being persecuted and silenced without just cause are called irrational (and worse).

Not understanding the very reasons for dismissing such a person is another good reason to ignore the person.


It;s actually very difficult to determine what is poor information and what is not; what has been thoroughly debunked and what has not, since each aspect leads to a rabbit hole of claim and counter claim and a mass of side issues in which it is very difficult to determine what is fact and what is not. Most people who look into it come away confused so doubting alone is not irrational. I'm not referring to this particular argument here in this thread, but in general it is an emotive issue in which expressing any doubt at all in the official account draws ridicule and abuse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:24 pm

djembeweaver wrote:It;s actually very difficult to determine what is poor information and what is not; what has been thoroughly debunked and what has not, since each aspect leads to a rabbit hole of claim and counter claim and a mass of side issues in which it is very difficult to determine what is fact and what is not. Most people who look into it come away confused so doubting alone is not irrational. I'm not referring to this particular argument here in this thread, but in general it is an emotive issue in which expressing any doubt at all in the official account draws ridicule and abuse.

dj==well said. Staking out the middle ground between "Accepted History" and "Conspiracy Theories." I think your generalization has more dignity than the actual number of examples you can cull from the current treasure chest of such claims? It also depends on how the "alternative theory" is argued. With subtlety and facts....more credible. With claims that everyone has missed some key recognition: more likely, a flake. Not considered at all: woo woo notions based on impossibilities or pure conjecture or bias.

Ha, ha. On balance: most CT are just that. Flakes. So........what is the legitimate minority view/possibility you have in mind to support your unsupported analysis?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:50 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:There being so many shootings in Texas - it takes a while for people to take heed and produce startle reactions. :)

I would hope that the smiley is a sign that you're not serious. The reactions to the fatal headshot at 313, began within less than a sixth of one second.


Of course serious. With so many shots being fired and some from silenced weapons too, how would anyone know which shot created which reactions?

For starters, anyone would know that shots fired from suppressed weapons would not be loud enough to evoke visible startle reactions. Reactions like these, could only have been to a high powered, unsuppressed rifle:

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

And the absence of reactions like that, to the early shots, suggest that they were fired from suppressed weapons, or weapons that for some other reason, were not very loud. Most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots and there were no reactions to them that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313.

It is beyond obvious that these shots did not all come from the same rifle or the same kind of rifle.
Last edited by Robert Harris on Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:05 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:It;s actually very difficult to determine what is poor information and what is not; what has been thoroughly debunked and what has not, since each aspect leads to a rabbit hole of claim and counter claim and a mass of side issues in which it is very difficult to determine what is fact and what is not. Most people who look into it come away confused so doubting alone is not irrational. I'm not referring to this particular argument here in this thread, but in general it is an emotive issue in which expressing any doubt at all in the official account draws ridicule and abuse.

dj==well said. Staking out the middle ground between "Accepted History" and "Conspiracy Theories." I think your generalization has more dignity than the actual number of examples you can cull from the current treasure chest of such claims? It also depends on how the "alternative theory" is argued. With subtlety and facts....more credible. With claims that everyone has missed some key recognition: more likely, a flake. Not considered at all: woo woo notions based on impossibilities or pure conjecture or bias.

Ha, ha. On balance: most CT are just that. Flakes. So........what is the legitimate minority view/possibility you have in mind to support your unsupported analysis?

Please define what you mean by "accepted history". Most people realize that Oswald did not act alone and according to Bugliosi, over 98% of the people who wrote books on the subject, also came to that same conclusion. If you think that Oswald acted alone, you are in a very small minority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1813/most-am ... l-jfk.aspx

What you are undoubtedly thinking of, is the recent spate of television shows, promoting the "lone nut" theory. But think about what they actually proved - that the kill shot came from the rear or that it was possible for one shot to have passed through both JFK and Connally, or that it was possible to shoot Kennedy from the alleged sniper's nest.

Now think about how ANY of them proved that Oswald acted alone. Of course they didn't. They didn't even come close.

Now consider the fact that shots were fired that were 1.5 seconds apart, faster than any of the FBI or HSCA experts who tested Oswald's gun, could achieve. And consider the vast difference between the nonreactions to the early shots and the ones at the end, as well as the fact that only one of the early shots was loud enough to be noticed.

No sane person who understood those facts, could ever believe that Oswald was the only assassin that day.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:It;s actually very difficult to determine what is poor information and what is not; what has been thoroughly debunked and what has not, since each aspect leads to a rabbit hole of claim and counter claim and a mass of side issues in which it is very difficult to determine what is fact and what is not. Most people who look into it come away confused so doubting alone is not irrational. I'm not referring to this particular argument here in this thread, but in general it is an emotive issue in which expressing any doubt at all in the official account draws ridicule and abuse.

dj==well said. Staking out the middle ground between "Accepted History" and "Conspiracy Theories." I think your generalization has more dignity than the actual number of examples you can cull from the current treasure chest of such claims? It also depends on how the "alternative theory" is argued. With subtlety and facts....more credible. With claims that everyone has missed some key recognition: more likely, a flake. Not considered at all: woo woo notions based on impossibilities or pure conjecture or bias.

Ha, ha. On balance: most CT are just that. Flakes. So........what is the legitimate minority view/possibility you have in mind to support your unsupported analysis?


I haven't provided any analysis at all bobbo. All I've argued is that there is enough uncertainty for doubt to be reasonable. For example:

It seems reasonable to doubt whether or not Oswald was the only gunman.

It seems reasonable to doubt the explanation of the fatal shot.

It seems reasonable to suspect that political motives played some sort of role somewhere in the whole affair (including a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the Warren Commission was truly impartial)

In general, though, I think the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to separate fact from fiction. Thus, in the absence of any other considerations, this alone provides grounds for doubt of any particular facet of the event to be reasonable.

The second aspect of what I am arguing is that even expressing the views that I have expressed above is enough for some people to call me a conspiracy theorist. I think this is completely irrational and certainly logically invalid since I have neither expressed, nor supported, any explanation or theory of these events...

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7628
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:11 pm

Robert, wouldn`t it be nice if conspiracy believers conspired to approach a budding conspiracy and say – Nope, I have looked at this, and I find no evidence of a conspiracy.? Now that would be a conspiracy that I might believe in.

As for JFK - I am quite happy to wait for all of the documents to be released in a few years. The downside of course is that the C-believers will certainly not believe what is there, or even if everything has been released.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:02 am

TJrandom wrote:Robert, wouldn`t it be nice if conspiracy believers conspired to approach a budding conspiracy and say – Nope, I have looked at this, and I find no evidence of a conspiracy.? Now that would be a conspiracy that I might believe in.

As for JFK - I am quite happy to wait for all of the documents to be released in a few years. The downside of course is that the C-believers will certainly not believe what is there, or even if everything has been released.

I have said "nope", to a countless number of theories, including MOST of the JFK conspiracy theories.

And what do you mean by "conspiracy believers"? Do you deny believing in hundreds of conspiracies yourself? A "conspiracy" is nothing more than a crime committed by more than one individual.

In the JFK case, it is ridiculously easy to determine that there was more than a single sniper. Look at the article at the top of the thread. There is a reason why no one is willing to post a rebuttal or even respond to it. As for the CIA documents, what is the point? If members of the CIA were involved, do you really think they would have documented it? Do you think we'll find a memo that says, "Who's bringing the bullets?"?

I can tell you to a virtual certainty, who was behind this crime, but it seems that no one around here cares. There seems to be an unwritten rule that real "skeptics" don't accept JFK assassination conspiracies - no matter how much or how great the evidence for it is.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:56 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:I really don't understand why anyone questioning the official account is labelled a conspiracy theorist, dismissed a priori and called irrational (and worse).

They're not. People coming up with hypotheses about conspiracies are called conspiracy theorists; those who repeat errors based on poor information that has previously been debunked thoroughly and repeatedly are dismissed a priori; those who insist they are being persecuted and silenced without just cause are called irrational (and worse).

Not understanding the very reasons for dismissing such a person is another good reason to ignore the person.

It;s actually very difficult to determine what is poor information and what is not; what has been thoroughly debunked and what has not, since each aspect leads to a rabbit hole of claim and counter claim and a mass of side issues in which it is very difficult to determine what is fact and what is not.

Sure, if you don't examine it carefully. Here's an extremely useful hint: If you saw it on TV or read about it in a book, it's probably poor information. (If you read about it on the internet, then just forget about it.)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest