The JFK case - another approach

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
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 8:33 am

Gord wrote:
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.)

No! Some of the most brilliant men and women on the planet have given lectures and interviews and written papers which are accessible on the Internet.

There are no shortcuts. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, you have to evaluate the facts and evidence. When you see an argument like mine being put forward, CHALLENGE me. Look for flaws or better explanations than mine. I am asking the question that you should be asking. Could Oswald have been the only shooter that day? It's worth the trouble to get this stuff right.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
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 12:34 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
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.)

No! Some of the most brilliant men and women on the planet have given lectures and interviews and written papers which are accessible on the Internet.

Yes! Just forget about it. Internet information cannot be distinguished from lies.

Your claim about brilliance is irrelevant. If they can't back up their claims with evidence, their claims are worthless.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, you have to evaluate the facts and evidence.

It's been done to death already. A stuck record is a poor analogy here; I've never heard of one that's been stuck for

Look for flaws or better explanations than mine.

I dismissed you as a crank already. Why would I want to examine your poor information?

I am asking the question that you should be asking.

"Why am I discussing this old junk with Robert Harris on a skeptics forum?"

Could Oswald have been the only shooter that day?

Yes. It could also have been aliens. Asking the question "could it have been?" is a bad way to provoke interest in a skeptical person.

It's worth the trouble to get this stuff right.

For most people, it's not worth the trouble to endlessly go over and over something that cannot be definitively proven to a unanimous audience one way or the other due to poor or limited information, especially when the outcome is virtually inconsequential.
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:59 pm

Gord wrote:
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.)


This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'. Two things immediately spring to mind:

1) The sources of information you cite are actually just mediums, and cannot, therefore, be either valid or invalid. That assessment can only be made of the information itself not of the medium on which it is presented. For example I can access, in PDF format, academic articles published in respected journals. The fact that I have accessed the article via the internet, rather than having read it on paper, has no bearing on the quality, or validity, of the content of the article. This is so obvious I am gobsmacked that I have to point it out. Since the Warren Commission report is published in book format then, according to your logic, then it must be poor information.

2) Your list of mediums that one can discount a priori is pretty inclusive, leaving only radio, magazine articles and spoken hearsay as possible sources for good quality information (odd, since many bizarre magazines exist that all sorts of wild claims and some rambling paranoid has no claim to validity in my book). Since everything I have ever heard about the assassination of JFK has been via TV and the internet, according to your logic it is all poor information...and that includes the official narrative of the Warren Commission.

If not books, TV or the internet, then where on earth can one access 'good' information?

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 6:50 pm

Gord:

Besides your rather silly claim that nothing on the Internet is worthwhile, you've also resorted to name calling, labeling me as a "crank", without even the slightest justification. I have dealt with creationists who are more logical than you and less dependent on ad hominem insults.

As in your other posts in this thread, you do not present even a single item of evidence. Nor do you address the evidence and arguments I have presented, not even one of them.

As for your attack on my sources, these are the primary ones:

1. The Warren Commission report.
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez - Nobel prize winning physicist and government employee.
3. Dr. Micheal Stroscio - another prize winning physicist/Phd. who has chaired Presidential science commissions.
4. The people who rode in the limousine with President Kennedy.
5. The large consensus of other witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day.

As for your claim that I have not produced "unanimous" agreement, you are correct. But then no one has produced "unanimous" agreement on evolution either, have they? So far, my JFK presentations have been viewed over 13 millions times, with overwhelming approvals by the people who rated them on Youtube. Granted, that doesn't make me right, but it lays to rest your lame excuse that my analysis is not popular enough for you to address it.

This is the article. If you are correct that my work is so terrible, you should find it easy to refute. Why don't you post a rebuttal, debunking me?

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Of course we both know, you can't do that. So let's make it easier for you. If these people were reacting to a loud and startling gunshot, then the conspiracy debate is over. What do you think?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

If you remain in doubt, consider Special Agent, Roy Kellerman, sitting in the front, passenger seat. Do you think he was startled then?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:16 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
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.)

This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

1) The sources of information you cite are actually just mediums, and cannot, therefore, be either valid or invalid. That assessment can only be made of the information itself not of the medium on which it is presented. For example I can access, in PDF format, academic articles published in respected journals. The fact that I have accessed the article via the internet, rather than having read it on paper, has no bearing on the quality, or validity, of the content of the article. This is so obvious I am gobsmacked that I have to point it out. Since the Warren Commission report is published in book format then, according to your logic, then it must be poor information.

On the contrary, the source of the information is a valid target of criticism. In this case, I am generalising it to "the internet". Just because you can find academic articles on the internet does not make the internet a trustworthy source of information. If you had a magazine that published a small number of articles containing very sound information, but also published a large number of articles containing very untrustworthy information, you should not consider that magazine a good source of information. That's what you've got with the internet: A whole lot of garbage with the occasional glimmer of useful information. The garbage poisons the well.

The same goes for the generalisation of "books". Take the Warren Commission report published in book format, throw it into a pile of other books, then draw one out at random; can you trust that book you've drawn? No. Simply being "in book format" does not make it good information.

2) Your list of mediums that one can discount a priori is pretty inclusive, leaving only radio, magazine articles and spoken hearsay as possible sources for good quality information (odd, since many bizarre magazines exist that all sorts of wild claims and some rambling paranoid has no claim to validity in my book). Since everything I have ever heard about the assassination of JFK has been via TV and the internet, according to your logic it is all poor information...and that includes the official narrative of the Warren Commission.

If I had dismissed the list I'd given a priori, why would I have used the word "probably" in my statement? Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying when I use the words "hint" and "probably".

If not books, TV or the internet, then where on earth can one access 'good' information?

Go to the source.

Most people can't. They don't have the means, motive, or opportunity. But if they don't go to the source, they shouldn't make up hypotheses based on second-, third-, or fourth-hand information. It's unreliable.
"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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:58 am

Robert Harris wrote:Gord:

Besides your rather silly claim that nothing on the Internet is worthwhile, you've also resorted to name calling, labeling me as a "crank", without even the slightest justification. I have dealt with creationists who are more logical than you and less dependent on ad hominem insults.

I didn't resort to it, I engaged in it. It's hardly a resort.

And the fact that you think I don't have justification to call you a crank makes you look even more like a crank. You do know you're presenting a conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination, right? You're swimming with cranks.

It saddens me that you think it's a silly claim that there is untrustworthy information on the internet. But I'll get over it by the end of this sentence.

As in your other posts in this thread, you do not present even a single item of evidence.

I don't really need to; you're the evidence.

As for your attack on my sources, these are the primary ones:

1. The Warren Commission report.
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez - Nobel prize winning physicist and government employee.
3. Dr. Micheal Stroscio - another prize winning physicist/Phd. who has chaired Presidential science commissions.
4. The people who rode in the limousine with President Kennedy.
5. The large consensus of other witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day.

Oh goody. You've spoken to a whole lot of people. I'm almost impressed by your diligence at crafting your conspiracy. It's a pity I don't believe a thing you say, or I might actually be impressed.

Wait, don't you actually disagree with at least some of those sources?

As for your claim that I have not produced "unanimous" agreement--

That's not what I said.

But then no one has produced "unanimous" agreement on evolution either, have they?

Are you really equating your conspiracy beliefs with the scientific theory of evolution? Yeah, I guess you are.

So far, my JFK presentations have been viewed over 13 millions times, with overwhelming approvals by the people who rated them on Youtube.

lol!

Granted, that doesn't make me right, but it lays to rest your lame excuse that my analysis is not popular enough for you to address it.

Popularity is hardly a reason to waste time on something.

This is the article. If you are correct that my work is so terrible, you should find it easy to refute. Why don't you post a rebuttal, debunking me?

I have better things to do, such as stick a Q-tip in my ear until it hurts.

Of course we both know, you can't do that.

I think we both know it would be pointless. You've been rebutted and debunked aplenty before, and yet here you are, still conspiring away.

So let's make it easier for you. If these people were reacting to a loud and startling gunshot, then the conspiracy debate is over. What do you think?

I think your premise is flawed. No matter what those people were reacting to, the conspiracy theories would continue on (not "debate" -- hell, even "theory" is the wrong word).

If you remain in doubt, consider Special Agent, Roy Kellerman, sitting in the front, passenger seat. Do you think he was startled then?

I almost asked "Why do you think that's important?" but then I remembered the Q-tip thing.
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:23 am

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:05 am

djembeweaver wrote:All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

dj===ha, ha. You have let CT turn your thoughts, if not your brain, to mush.

Reason provides for some doubts to be unreasonable. Its what the word sets up: a range. When an issue is reasonable to debate, plunge in. When an issue is settled, spend your time as you wish but the issue is settled. Settled to the mind of 7.3 Billion people? No. Nothing is settled by that standard. Not evolution, gravity, the sun coming up tomorrow.....nothing. Because: not everyone reasonable on any given subject.

The JFK assassination has not been mythologized. JFK has been, as most figures in history are, but not the assassination.

Let me disentangle fact from fiction: JFK is dead. Oswald did it. Other details, at this point in time, don't matter. Only unreasonable people disagree.

See how that works?
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?

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:37 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

dj===ha, ha. You have let CT turn your thoughts, if not your brain, to mush.

Reason provides for some doubts to be unreasonable. Its what the word sets up: a range. When an issue is reasonable to debate, plunge in. When an issue is settled, spend your time as you wish but the issue is settled. Settled to the mind of 7.3 Billion people? No. Nothing is settled by that standard. Not evolution, gravity, the sun coming up tomorrow.....nothing. Because: not everyone reasonable on any given subject.

The JFK assassination has not been mythologized. JFK has been, as most figures in history are, but not the assassination.

Let me disentangle fact from fiction: JFK is dead. Oswald did it. Other details, at this point in time, don't matter. Only unreasonable people disagree.

See how that works?


Yes I think I do. You seem to be saying that once a consensus is reached among a majority of interested parties one should accept it uncritically. This is clearly nonsense. I don't even do that for scientific theories, although I am more inclined to do so because I have a reasonable understanding of, and therefore faith in, the scientific method. History is a whole different ball game, especially concerning recent events that are politically charged.

Highly respected investigative journalists like Adam Curtis show clearly how the reporting of current affairs and history is used as propoganda and that accepting any account uncritically is not at all logical or reasonable.

Besides, I do not even refute your claim that 'Oswald did it', but rather I refute the claim that this is self-evident beyond reasonable doubt. To be honest this is not an issue I have either time or inclination do delve into enough to even try to separate fact from fiction, since even cursory forays reveal a complex tangle of (dis)information.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:38 pm

dj==yep, its all about where the line is drawn and what side of it you wish to spend your time.

Its why I don't fish.
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?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:36 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

Oh, if THAT'S all you said, then I don't disagree. I thought you said a lot more, though.

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

Not quite what I said, but sure: If you go to the library and read the Warren Commission report without having any verifiable information, your conclusions will be invalid. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you won't be able to know simply by going to the library and reading the Warren Commission report.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I give up, how? That's your own accusation, not mine, unless you are Robert Harris posting under the wrong board name.
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:25 pm

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord:

You've been rebutted and debunked aplenty before, and yet here you are, still conspiring away.

There's just no nice way to put it. You are a liar.

I have never been refuted on this and you have never seen a refutation. You will prove that by failing to even try to describe such a rebuttal, and instead, spew out some kind of pathetically lame excuse.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:40 pm

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

Oh, if THAT'S all you said, then I don't disagree. I thought you said a lot more, though.

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

Not quite what I said, but sure: If you go to the library and read the Warren Commission report without having any verifiable information, your conclusions will be invalid. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you won't be able to know simply by going to the library and reading the Warren Commission report.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I give up, how? That's your own accusation, not mine, unless you are Robert Harris posting under the wrong board name.

What is the point of all these ridiculous insults?

If anything in my article seems ambiguous to you, then JUST ASK ME ABOUT IT.

All I hear from you guys are excuses for why you cannot address the evidence. This is not confusing or complicated. If there was a shot when I claim there was, then Oswald didn't fire both of the ones at the end.

You can either argue that there was no shot then or argue that Oswald could have fired both. Or you could challenge me for more documentation. Evading these issues on the excuse that all this is too complicated for you, just doesn't cut it. I came here, expecting to find critical and objective thinkers. So far, all I've found are ad hominem insults and endless evasions.

Let me make this even simpler for you. Forget about me (like you haven't already:-) YOU make the call. Just look at the Zapruder film and note the reactions by the people who were closest to Kennedy. The frames are numbered. Look at the reactions to the early shots (prior to 285) and look at the reactions beginning a few frames after 285 and 313. Decide for yourself whether all of them came from the same rifle.

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:54 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

Oh, if THAT'S all you said, then I don't disagree. I thought you said a lot more, though.

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

Not quite what I said, but sure: If you go to the library and read the Warren Commission report without having any verifiable information, your conclusions will be invalid. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you won't be able to know simply by going to the library and reading the Warren Commission report.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I give up, how? That's your own accusation, not mine, unless you are Robert Harris posting under the wrong board name.

What is the point of all these ridiculous insults?

If anything in my article seems ambiguous to you, then JUST ASK ME ABOUT IT.

All I hear from you guys are excuses for why you cannot address the evidence. This is not confusing or complicated. If there was a shot when I claim there was, then Oswald didn't fire both of the ones at the end.

You can either argue that there was no shot then or argue that Oswald could have fired both. Or you could challenge me for more documentation. Evading these issues on the excuse that all this is too complicated for you, just doesn't cut it. I came here, expecting to find critical and objective thinkers. So far, all I've found are ad hominem insults and endless evasions.

Let me make this even simpler for you. Forget about me (like you haven't already:-) YOU make the call. Just look at the Zapruder film and note the reactions by the people who were closest to Kennedy. The frames are numbered. Look at the reactions to the early shots (prior to 285) and look at the reactions beginning a few frames after 285 and 313. Decide for yourself whether all of them came from the same rifle.

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif


It's very difficult to get any rational argument on an issue that comes under the 'conspiracy theory' label. On almost any other topic you can get at least a few members who offer good quality critical thinking. Indeed in the short time I have been a member of this forum I have learned a great deal about a wide range of issues that I previously knew little about, as well as being required to delve deeper than I previously have into issues that I have good knowledge and experience of. I find it bizarre that the same standards are not applied to all subjects but the consensus view seems to be that CTs can be dismissed a priori since they have already been soundly debunked elsewhere and therefore there is no need to go over it again.

I think many people are afraid to engage at all because they fear that opening that door just a crack could lead to a flood of incoherent rantings from crazy conspiracy theorists.

I also suspect that many people who are tempted to engage, or to make even a modest concession (such as admitting that doubting official narratives alone is not irrational) are scared that doing so will draw ridicule from other members and will run the risk of being branded a conspiracy theorist oneself.

In this very thread someone has already argued that my refusal to dismiss some conspiracy theories a priori is grounds enough to ignore me. So my very insistence on refutation based on valid evidence-based argument is itself offered as evidence that I am irrational! There's logic for you!

Taking all that into account, I very much doubt that you will get anyone to engage with you and your line of argument, even in order to refute it.

It's a shame because if certain 'theories' are easily refuted with logic and evidence, then doing so would leave far less fertile ground for conspiracy theories in the first place and people like me, who really don't know what to believe, might find it easier to separate fact from fiction.

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 Nov 03, 2015 11:34 pm

djembeweaver wrote:I think many people are afraid to engage at all because they fear that opening that door just a crack could lead to a flood of incoherent rantings from crazy conspiracy theorists.

Well, or that they're tired of such, but I think Gord even really hit the nail on this: I'm not sure a lot of folks in this forum even really care about JFK conspiracies. Toss out an alien or 911 conspiracy and you'd probably get more responses, but JFK doesn't seem to be as big a deal, especially for us non-Americans.

djembeweaver wrote:Taking all that into account, I very much doubt that you will get anyone to engage with you and your line of argument, even in order to refute it.

I would honestly like to, but I just haven't had a moment to myself to think about the points being raised. For the record, I don't think the arguments made by Robert have been especially irksome or illogical. Indeed, I would even raise that the concerns are perfectly legitimate and worth responding to -- though I obviously disagree with Robert's conclusions (and interpretation of evidence).

But I also agree with Robert, the responses in the thread so far, including my own, really haven't sufficiently addressed his arguments or responded in any particularly reasonable way, in part because of the reasons above.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:40 pm

And the prize for the first rational response goes to Canadian Skeptic. Hurrah!

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:41 am

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord:

You've been rebutted and debunked aplenty before, and yet here you are, still conspiring away.

There's just no nice way to put it. You are a liar.

No, you.

I have never been refuted on this and you have never seen a refutation.

See? You're a liar.

You will prove that by failing to even try to describe such a rebuttal, and instead, spew out some kind of pathetically lame excuse.

Oh, please. You know you've been thoroughly refuted elsewhere. Now you're here trying to start over from scratch.
"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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:47 am

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

Oh, if THAT'S all you said, then I don't disagree. I thought you said a lot more, though.

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

Not quite what I said, but sure: If you go to the library and read the Warren Commission report without having any verifiable information, your conclusions will be invalid. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you won't be able to know simply by going to the library and reading the Warren Commission report.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I give up, how? That's your own accusation, not mine, unless you are Robert Harris posting under the wrong board name.

What is the point of all these ridiculous insults?

:| uh, whut insults?

If anything in my article seems ambiguous to you, then JUST ASK ME ABOUT IT.

Who said anything about ambiguous? It seems quite plain to me.

All I hear from you guys are excuses for why you cannot address the evidence.

No, you hear our reasons for not engaging with yet one more nutbar. It's pointless. You won't give up your conspiracy theory no matter what, and we won't buy into it unless you can present some compelling evidence.

This is not confusing or complicated. If there was a shot when I claim there was, then Oswald didn't fire both of the ones at the end.

Exactly. You make claims no one accepts to be true.

You can either argue that there was no shot then or argue that Oswald could have fired both. Or you could challenge me for more documentation.

Or we can just ignore you, maybe mock you a little bit, and wait for you to go back to some other board where you've already failed to achieve your desired goal and try again there.

Evading these issues on the excuse that all this is too complicated for you, just doesn't cut it.

No one's evading it because it's too complicated; we're simply not arguing with you because it's a waste of time. We prefer to waste our time on more interesting things, like pretending we're all cats or looking for mold in our navels.

I came here, expecting to find critical and objective thinkers. So far, all I've found are ad hominem insults and endless evasions.

All you've found it people not willing to waste time with your hokum "conspiracy theory".

Let me make this even simpler for you. Forget about me (like you haven't already:-) YOU make the call.

No, we won't forget about you, this is all about you. Your website is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream, and we prefer not to play in it with you.
"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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:07 am

djembeweaver wrote:It's very difficult to get any rational argument on an issue that comes under the 'conspiracy theory' label.

Well, that's because things that get labelled "conspiracy theories" are generally immune to rational argument. They carry on regardless of any refutation they encounter.

I think many people are afraid to engage at all because they fear that opening that door just a crack could lead to a flood of incoherent rantings from crazy conspiracy theorists.

It's not a fear, it's a frequent occurrence.

I also suspect that many people who are tempted to engage, or to make even a modest concession (such as admitting that doubting official narratives alone is not irrational) are scared that doing so will draw ridicule from other members and will run the risk of being branded a conspiracy theorist oneself.

I guess anything's possible, but for the most part people tend to keep away from ridiculous arguments unless they're entirely one-sided; then one or two might step in and suggest how useless the ridiculous exchanges are and, since that seldom leads to their cessation, have some fun with a silly conversation that can't lead to anything else of any use.

In this very thread someone has already argued that my refusal to dismiss some conspiracy theories a priori is grounds enough to ignore me.

Sounds like someone who's had a previous encounter with you before.

So my very insistence on refutation based on valid evidence-based argument is itself offered as evidence that I am irrational! There's logic for you!

Taking all that into account, I very much doubt that you will get anyone to engage with you and your line of argument, even in order to refute it.

So engage with him if you want. Why do you care if some other twit thinks they should ignore you for doing it? Isn't that a good thing? I wish a lot of the twits would ignore ME!

It's a shame because if certain 'theories' are easily refuted with logic and evidence, then doing so would leave far less fertile ground for conspiracy theories in the first place and people like me, who really don't know what to believe, might find it easier to separate fact from fiction.

It's even a greater shame when things that don't hold up to scrutiny are constantly trotted around from forum to forum trying to find a niche where they might swell up into full-blown conspiracy theory boards.

Here you go, dj: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=222556 International Skeptics forum, forever-and-forever JFK conspiracy discussion. It starts with "JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends", which goes on for 226 pages, then continues with "JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II" for another 137 pages, goes on to "JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III" for 99 more pages, and is currently on page 11 of "JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales".

That's the one where Robert Harris has "never been refuted on this and you have never seen a refutation". :lol:

Post on whatever topic you want, just don't expect most of us to take nonsense seriously. But if you want to discuss this with Robert Harris, go ahead. Knock yerself out. When one or both of you have lost interest, maybe we'll turn this into another "Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!" playground.
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:17 pm

Gord wrote: ...if you want to discuss this with Robert Harris, go ahead. Knock yerself out. When one or both of you have lost interest, maybe we'll turn this into another "Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!" playground.


I don't particularly want to discuss this with anyone. I've had a brief foray into it before and come to the conclusion that "That way lies madness...". What disappoints me is the way people and arguments are dismissed a priori and the way in which the term CT can be used to discredit. Some observations / conjectures etc that lie at the root of some CTs appear entirely reasonable to many people.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:11 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote: ...if you want to discuss this with Robert Harris, go ahead. Knock yerself out. When one or both of you have lost interest, maybe we'll turn this into another "Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!" playground.


I don't particularly want to discuss this with anyone. I've had a brief foray into it before and come to the conclusion that "That way lies madness...".

Oh my gawd that's the same frickin' thing I'm saying! IT'S A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME THAT CAN'T LEAD TO ANYTHING BUT MADNESS!

What disappoints me is the way people and arguments are dismissed a priori and the way in which the term CT can be used to discredit. Some observations / conjectures etc that lie at the root of some CTs appear entirely reasonable to many people.

What disappoints me is the way you think anyone here has dismissed any arguments a priori, and why you think the term "CT" has been used to discredit rather than to accurately describe.

Conjectures that appear reasonable to many people do not make for a good starting point in any theory. Many people think the moon isn't really the moon:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-n ... moon-92200

http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon- ... -illusion/

https://storify.com/LaurenNace/the-moon-isn-t-real
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:46 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:This is a really good example of how many reasonable people become utterly illogical when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree, you and this Harris guy are good examples.

All I have said is that doubt is reasonable and that the event has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to disentangle fact from fiction. How is that illogical?

Oh, if THAT'S all you said, then I don't disagree. I thought you said a lot more, though.

With regards to 'going to the source': If I go the library and read the Warren Commission report it will be in book format and by your logic invalid.

Not quite what I said, but sure: If you go to the library and read the Warren Commission report without having any verifiable information, your conclusions will be invalid. They may be right, they may be wrong, but you won't be able to know simply by going to the library and reading the Warren Commission report.

I don't believe any account of the JFK event since it is a jumble of misinformation. How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I give up, how? That's your own accusation, not mine, unless you are Robert Harris posting under the wrong board name.

What is the point of all these ridiculous insults?

If anything in my article seems ambiguous to you, then JUST ASK ME ABOUT IT.

All I hear from you guys are excuses for why you cannot address the evidence. This is not confusing or complicated. If there was a shot when I claim there was, then Oswald didn't fire both of the ones at the end.

You can either argue that there was no shot then or argue that Oswald could have fired both. Or you could challenge me for more documentation. Evading these issues on the excuse that all this is too complicated for you, just doesn't cut it. I came here, expecting to find critical and objective thinkers. So far, all I've found are ad hominem insults and endless evasions.

Let me make this even simpler for you. Forget about me (like you haven't already:-) YOU make the call. Just look at the Zapruder film and note the reactions by the people who were closest to Kennedy. The frames are numbered. Look at the reactions to the early shots (prior to 285) and look at the reactions beginning a few frames after 285 and 313. Decide for yourself whether all of them came from the same rifle.

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif


It's very difficult to get any rational argument on an issue that comes under the 'conspiracy theory' label.

What a strange thing to say. We have more evidence available on the JFK case than any 10 other murders. Of course we can have a rational "argument", as I'm sure some of you have had in the past. Furthermore, the evidence I am presenting is not in dispute.

We know there was a shot at Zapruder frame 313. If there was another fired at 285, then Oswald couldn't have fired both. Here is the relevant evidence:

1. The empirical evidence of the reactions to the 285 shot.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

2. The science of two of the nation's top physicists, concluding that that there was a loud and startling noise at 285.

3. The near unanimous consensus of the witnesses, that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

#1 by itself, is sufficient to make my case, unless someone has a better explanation for three people simultaneously ducking. The facts and evidence are all that matters. They would exist, even if I did not.

djembeweaver wrote:On almost any other topic you can get at least a few members who offer good quality critical thinking.

After studying this crime for over 20 years, I am not seeking information. I am providing it. And the information I provide is easily verifiable and beyond dispute.

djembeweaver wrote:Indeed in the short time I have been a member of this forum I have learned a great deal about a wide range of issues that I previously knew little about, as well as being required to delve deeper than I previously have into issues that I have good knowledge and experience of. I find it bizarre that the same standards are not applied to all subjects but the consensus view seems to be that CTs can be dismissed a priori since they have already been soundly debunked elsewhere and therefore there is no need to go over it again.

"CT" is a form of name calling and a poor one at that, since we are all conspiracy theorists. From Watergate to a thousand crimes that include indictments of conspiracy, we all believe in countless conspiracies. There are also a lot of bad conspiracy theories, which should be labeled as exactly that, but only if we have the facts and evidence to prove it.

djembeweaver wrote:I think many people are afraid to engage at all because they fear that opening that door just a crack could lead to a flood of incoherent rantings from crazy conspiracy theorists.

I certainly hope that people are not that stupid, at least not in a skeptic's forum. MOST people in the US and throughout the civilized world, believe this was a conspiracy. And MOST people who have researched and written about the case, came to the same conclusion. That includes the head of the federal HSCA committee, who wrote a book, concluding that mafia kingpin, Carlos Marcello was behind the crime. He wrote that BTW, before Marcello confessed to the crime, to an FBI informant, while he was in prison.

The "lone nut" theory is very much a minority opinion, which contradicts the last government investigation and a massive quantity of evidence. This pretense that the case has already been resolved in favor of the LN theory, is nothing more than a poor excuse to dodge this evidence. And accusations that my analysis has been refuted is nothing more than a deliberate lie. Have you noticed that none of these people who made that accusation have responded to my challenge that they describe one of these refutations?

If I had argued say, that the driver shot JFK, there would be a barrage of statements, correctly pointing out that I am seeing an optical illusion, thinking the glare off the top of SA Kellerman's head, was a gun. I would be likewise refuted, if I tried to claim that it was impossible for one bullet to have passed through both JFK and John Connally. But the analysis I am presenting about the shots, really is the reality of what happened. It cannot be refuted, which is why the best my adversaries can muster are insults and excuses.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:50 pm

Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

As for my website at jfkhistory.com, what exactly did you find that was false. Please be specific.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:03 pm

Robert Harris wrote: ... the evidence I am presenting is not in dispute.

We know there was a shot at Zapruder frame 313. If there was another fired at 285, then Oswald couldn't have fired both. Here is the relevant evidence:

1. The empirical evidence of the reactions to the 285 shot.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

2. The science of two of the nation's top physicists, concluding that that there was a loud and startling noise at 285.

3. The near unanimous consensus of the witnesses, that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

#1 by itself, is sufficient to make my case, unless someone has a better explanation for three people simultaneously ducking. The facts and evidence are all that matters. They would exist, even if I did not. ...


Great - so it is settled now. Good to hear that we won`t be hearing any more of this here, and that you will move on to rewriting the history books.

Oh {!#%@}! Simultaneous ducking? Birds... bees... sudden gusts of wind... someone yelling `Get down.` ... why even a conspiracy with three people agreeing to `duck on three... one, two three, duck` ... the options seem endless.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:32 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: ... the evidence I am presenting is not in dispute.

We know there was a shot at Zapruder frame 313. If there was another fired at 285, then Oswald couldn't have fired both. Here is the relevant evidence:

1. The empirical evidence of the reactions to the 285 shot.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

2. The science of two of the nation's top physicists, concluding that that there was a loud and startling noise at 285.

3. The near unanimous consensus of the witnesses, that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

#1 by itself, is sufficient to make my case, unless someone has a better explanation for three people simultaneously ducking. The facts and evidence are all that matters. They would exist, even if I did not. ...


Great - so it is settled now. Good to hear that we won`t be hearing any more of this here, and that you will move on to rewriting the history books.

Oh {!#%@}! Simultaneous ducking? Birds... bees... sudden gusts of wind... someone yelling `Get down.` ... why even a conspiracy with three people agreeing to `duck on three... one, two three, duck` ... the options seem endless.

Your attempts at ridicule might be more convincing if the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Alvarez had not confirmed a loud and startle noise at precisely the same instant that those people reacted, and if he had not been corroborated by the similarly qualified, Dr. Michael Stroscio, who has chaired presidential science commissions.

And if there was not a near unanimous consensus of the witnesses that there were two, closely bunched shots at the end of the attack, which matches perfect with the shots at 285 and 313.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

And why would you make the idiotic claim that those people were reacting to the birds and the bees? Would you like to talk about what THEY said they were hearing at the time?

I knew you would :mrgreen:

This is from the WC testimony of Special Agent, Bill Greer, who drive the limousine,

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?

Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other..

SAIC, Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front, passenger seat, stated that he heard a single "firecracker" sound, a delay and then, "a flurry of shells come into the car.".

Mr. SPECTER.. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that...

Representative FORD. You don't recall precisely a second shot and a third shot such as you did in the case of the first?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it.

Representative FORD. This is for the second and the third, or the flurry as you described it?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; that is right, sir.

There were countless others who echoed Greer and Kellerman's testimonies that they heard only a single noise or shot, followed by a delay, and then closely bunched shots at the end. For example, Motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood,

Mr. Belin. Were the three spaced equally distant?

Mr. Haygood. No..

Mr. Belin. Was one more close than the other one?

Mr. Haygood. The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.


Dallas Morning News reporter, Mary Woodward,

I heard a very loud noise. And I wasn't sure what it was at that point, and I turned to my friends and asked "what was that? Is some jerk shooting off firecrackers?' And then I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one.

Secret Service agent George Hickey, riding in the followup car immediately behind the President, heard a single noise, a delay and then,

"At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which... were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."

Would you like to hear a few dozen more? And yes, I know that witnesses are not infallible, but if they were wrong, isn't it amazing that they would all have made exactly the same mistake?

Probably the best witness is Mrs. Connally, not because she was any more observant or reliable than the others, but because we can follow along in the Zapruder film and match her testimony up with her actions. She testified that she heard a "noise" and then looked back to see JFK with his hands raised. She then heard a shot which she thought, wounded her husband and provoked her to turn back toward him, to pull him back to her. In this brief presentation, you can watch her in an interview, repeating what she told the Warren Commission:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

In this animation, there are no comments by me. Just watch her turn back to see JFK in distress, then you tell me, when she reacted to the shot which she believed, wounded the governor. Watch her turn to him and pull him back to her. When did that happen?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:44 pm

The world's worst argument, is not a conspiracy theory. The world's worst argument is to say, "Shut up and stop showing me evidence. I've already made up my mind!"

That is what you hear from evangelists and young earth creationists, spiritualists, holocaust deniers, and worse. Sadly, it is what I also hear in this forum, from self-proclaimed "skeptics", who seem to have forgotten that skepticism requires objectivity and total reliance on the facts and evidence.

If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:00 pm

Robert Harris wrote:The world's worst argument, is not a conspiracy theory. The world's worst argument is to say, "Shut up and stop showing me evidence. I've already made up my mind!"

That is what you hear from evangelists and young earth creationists, spiritualists, holocaust deniers, and worse. Sadly, it is what I also hear in this forum, from self-proclaimed "skeptics", who seem to have forgotten that skepticism requires objectivity and total reliance on the facts and evidence.

If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.


Like I said - if it is settled, then please just put it in the history books. Why do you care if a few nutters here don`t believe you?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:32 pm

Robert Harris wrote:Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

No, you lied when you said you hadn't been. I posted the link to another website where many of your claims were refuted.

As for my website at jfkhistory.com, what exactly did you find that was false. Please be specific.

I find you entirely false. You. It's you.
"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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:33 pm

Robert Harris wrote:If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.

No, we'll post here with whatever response we feel appropriate, as we've been doing. If you don't like skeptical people not biting your hook, go fish in other waters.
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:02 am

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

No, you lied when you said you hadn't been. I posted the link to another website where many of your claims were refuted.

No you didn't. You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all. And you know that, which is why you continue to dodge my challenge for you to describe one of them.

You are a liar and you compound your lies every time you try to deny your deceptions. You violate every principle of true skepticism, from objectivity to integrity.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:04 am

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.

No, we'll post here with whatever response we feel appropriate

I've never seen anyone so driven to make excuses and evade the evidence.

BTW, when do you intend to tell everyone about these refutations you saw, to my analysis on the 285 shot? I'll make it easy for you. Just describe one of them.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:14 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

No, you lied when you said you hadn't been. I posted the link to another website where many of your claims were refuted.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all.

It contains many rebuttals.

And you know that, which is why you continue to dodge my challenge for you to describe one of them.

Your a liar. I don't "dodge" your challenge, I reject it outright. I'm not going to get into a so-called "debate" with you for the same reason I'm not going to get into a "debate" with a creationist or a flat-earther -- it's a waste of time.

You are a liar and you compound your lies every time you try to deny your deceptions. You violate every principle of true skepticism, from objectivity to integrity.

You are the liar here. And now you compound your lies with the oft-seen wail of "but you're not doing skepticism right, wah wah!"
"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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:19 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.

No, we'll post here with whatever response we feel appropriate

I've never seen anyone so driven to make excuses and evade the evidence.

You're seeing imaginary things that exist only in your head. If you were familiar with me on these boards, you would know that I am an extremely lazy person. Suggesting that my laziness was somehow a "drive" would be tantamount to desperation...oh wait, you might just do that anyway, mightn't you?

BTW, when do you intend to tell everyone about these refutations you saw, to my analysis on the 285 shot? I'll make it easy for you. Just describe one of them.

Haha! Yesterday, when I provided the link to another forum where you suckered a whole bunch of people into engaging you on your own terms. You had your ass handed to you and you refused to accept that, so now you're here looking for another bunch of people.

But all you've got is me, who will only engage you on my own terms.

And doesn't that just suck for you and your conspiracy theory? :neener:
"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

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:38 pm

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

No, you lied when you said you hadn't been. I posted the link to another website where many of your claims were refuted.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all.

Gord wrote:It contains many rebuttals.

Then describe one of them.

Or are you just trying to spare my feelings :mrgreen:

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:50 pm

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:If you do not care about the JFK case, then don't bother posting here. If you do, then stop making excuses and address the evidence - honestly and objectively.

No, we'll post here with whatever response we feel appropriate

I've never seen anyone so driven to make excuses and evade the evidence.

You're seeing imaginary things that exist only in your head. If you were familiar with me on these boards, you would know that I am an extremely lazy person.

Ahh... excuse #37! Sadly however, it seems that you have a much bigger problem with integrity than your work ethic.

Good thing for me though, that you are too lazy to talk about these devastating refutations. I guess all of the others in this forum, are also too lazy to go to your link and cite even one refutation. Or perhaps they are too honest to do that.

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:59 pm

Roy Kellerman

Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the presidential limousine is by any standard, a five star witnesses - first, because he was a Secret Service agent whose job was, to keep and eye and an ear out for trouble.

Also, he was totally consistent with most of the other witnesses, who heard exactly the same spacing between the shots that he did.

Even more importantly, he was visible in the Zapruder film, so we can easily match up his testimony, with his actions. To put it another way, Kellerman did more than just tell us when shots were fired, he SHOWED us.

Kellerman stated that the time between the first noise/shot he heard and the second, was about 5 seconds.

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that. "

He described the final shots like this, "a flurry of shells come into the car" and "..it was like a double bang--bang, bang."

Even more convincing than his testimony, are his visible actions in the Zapruder film. During the attack, he ducked only twice - within a tiny fraction of a second following the shot at 285 and again, almost immediately following the headshot at 313. This animation makes that very clear (will not run properly until it loads and runs a second time).

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

And his reactions were simultaneous with reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally who dropped their heads at the same instant he did.

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

The three of them reacted simultaneously with Bill greer, who began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible. It was while he was spinning that in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas, slowing the limousine.

More corroboration comes from Dr. Luis Alvarez, who concluded that both Greer and Abraham Zapruder reacted to a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285. He said that Zapruder reacted at frames 290-291. The limo passengers and Greer, began to reaction at 290-292.

Watch that first animation again. Like Kellerman who ducked twice, Greer spun around from rear to front in perfect unison with Kellerman and the two ladies, as they dropped their heads.

In addition to ducking, Kellerman also exhibited other reactions which are textbook examples of startle responses to a loud noise. As he dropped his head, he raised his hand to shield his left ear, and hunched his shoulders upward and forward - exactly as described by Landis and Hunt, in their universally accepted textbooks.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

As we go through the other visible, surviving witnesses in the limo, we will find almost perfect consistency among them. Each, heard only one early shot and were oblivious to the shot at frame 223, even Governor Connally who was hit by it. And with only the exception of Gov. Connally, who was about to pass out then, each described two shots which were fired at the end of the attack, or well after frame 223.

That doesn't mean there was no shot at 223; there obviously was. But it was not heard by the large majority of witnesses, as the Warren Commission confirmed, or by anyone in the limousine. Oswald's rifle was proven to generate an ear shattering, 130 decibels at ground level. The idea that one of his shots went unnoticed is beyond ludicrous.

At the very least, that shot was not fired by Oswald.

One last point to cover a loose end - one might wonder how we can be sure that the solitary early shot that was audible, was not the one at 223, rather than the one just prior to that, probably circa 150-160.

Mrs. Kennedy, SA George Hickey and SA Paul Landis, all stated that they turned to their right, in reaction to the only early shot that they heard. In the Zapruder film, we can see each of them turning exactly as they described, well before frame 223. Ergo, the earlier shot was audible to them, but not the one at 223. Governor Connally reported exactly the same thing. He heard the earlier shot, but not the one at 223.

One might argue that someone heard the opposite, that 223 was audible to them, and 150-160 was not, but that seems highly improbable and even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that none of the early shots came from a high powered rifle.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:35 pm

I believe you have missed an important question....

viewtopic.php?p=489485#p489314

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:13 pm

TJrandom wrote:I believe you have missed an important question....

viewtopic.php?p=489485#p489314

You asked,

"Like I said - if it is settled, then please just put it in the history books. Why do you care if a few nutters here don`t believe you?"

I have already provided this information to all the JFK forums and have made presentations that have been viewed over 13 million times. As for why I don't put it in the history books, I do not publish history books and do not have the authority to edit them.

Now it's my turn. Why are you more concerned about shutting me up than in discussing whether or not I am right?

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:15 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:I believe you have missed an important question....

viewtopic.php?p=489485#p489314

You asked,

"Like I said - if it is settled, then please just put it in the history books. Why do you care if a few nutters here don`t believe you?"

I have already provided this information to all the JFK forums and have made presentations that have been viewed over 13 million times. As for why I don't put it in the history books, I do not publish history books and do not have the authority to edit them.

I don't care if a few nutters disagree with me. I am posting for the benefit of those who are intelligent enough and objective enough to evaluate the facts and evidence I have presented.

Now it's my turn. Why are you more concerned about shutting me up than in discussing whether or not I am right?

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

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:24 pm

TJrandom,

Very seriously. If by some crazy, billion to one shot, suppose I am right. Would you prefer to not know about it? Don't you think it would be important to American history?

And what if rogue members of government were involved? What if J Edgar Hoover, who has already earned a despicable reputation as a racist and blackmailer, went to outrageous lengths to cover up evidence of the conspiracy?

Would you prefer to remain ignorant of that? Would you attack those who try to present that information, urging them to shut up about it?
Last edited by Robert Harris on Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest