JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[twik]

With regards to special effects, the prof's question is really not appropriate. Sure, all sorts of people *could* have added special effects. The question is, how many of them could add believable special effects, that cannot be easily detected after 50 years?

I suspect that the answer to that is "none". If profmunkin can provide evidence of someone who could take a live-shot 8 mm film, doctor it in a day or two, and do it so seamlessly that it cannot be easily identified a generation later, I would be very impressed.

[ka9q]

I don't think undetectable special effects could be added to the Z film. Not even now.

The Z-film is often described as the most scrutinized and studied piece of celluloid on the planet, and this is not an exaggeration. Almost any person with a knowledge of physics and optics can quickly spot literally dozens of giveaways even in a "big budget" science fiction film like "2001: A Space Odyssey". Yet no one has ever found one in the Z film despite nearly 50 years of constant study.

[ka9q]

I think this is actually pretty conclusive. There were a number of people near the knoll (which makes it a really bad choice for a shooter, in multiple ways). No one near the knoll spotted a shooter or reported the effects of shots right next to them.

Yes, it certainly is conclusive. So much so that if the conspiracists were to ever correctly acknowledge even a fraction of the known facts and evidence of the assassination, their game would be over. Even they would have to agree that Oswald did it, alone, not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond practically any doubt.

So the conspiracists stay in business only by blatantly and repeatedly mischaracterizing the evidence: i.e., lying. They correctly assume that most people won't bother to check them on it. The few who do are simply ignored until they eventually give up from the utter frustration of trying to talk to a brick wall. The conspiracists then claim victory by default.

It's a battle of attrition based on a kind of magical thinking: anything you say, no matter how self-contradictory, illogical, bizarre or just plain false, can become true fact if you merely repeat enough to outlast those who contradict you.

One of profmunkin's many examples is his feigned disbelief that Norman, Williams and Jarmin could not detect Oswald's shots from directly over their heads. Not only did they most certainly detect Oswald's three very loud rifle shots, Norman also heard Oswald operate the bolt three times, each time ejecting a shell that Norman heard hit the floor. All three quickly and correctly concluded that the shots were fired from almost directly above them. Not only do we have their consistent testimony on this point, but we have pictures of them taken from ground level showing them right where they said they were. And the Warren Commission verified by direct experiment that Norman could easily have heard the sounds he said he heard.

[Chew]

The Warren Commission was the first time so many eyewitnesses to a series of crimes were interviewed and I have not read any two whose testimony matched even superficially. Just when you think you've found an eyewitness to support one scenario, be it a conspiracy or a lone gunman, they say something that makes you say, "WTF?" Hudson, the groundskeeper for Dealey Plaza and who was closest to the picket fence than anybody, said he heard 3 shots come from behind the motorcade at a high elevation and then goes on to say there was another shot after the head shot. Clint Hill and a few other law enforcement personnel said they heard 2 shots. Newman, the closest person to JFK when he was shot in the head, said JFK stood up when he was first hit. Almost every eyewitness said something that was contradicted by every other eyewitness or by photo or video evidence.

Eyewitnesses are useless. About all they are good for is establishing that a crime did in fact happen, and even then they are often mistaken. I was watching one of those forensics shows a few years ago and a cop said, "It makes my job easier if there aren't any eyewitnesses to a crime." At least that's what I remember him saying.

[ka9q]

I wouldn't say eyewitnesses are completely useless. But when you have a large number of them and most say the same thing, chances are they're close to correct.

That still doesn't mean you don't need physical evidence to confirm it.

[SolusLupus]

Hm, seems like prof has left.  Not too surprising, since he did seem to realize we didn't want to continue the debate (and would have him banned, for that matter) if he weren't to provide his own narrative of events.

[ka9q]

I would have been happy simply to see him address some of our points and stop blatantly mischaracterizing the evidence -- even if he never gave us his own complete narrative of events.

[gillianren]

I maintain that he didn't have one.  He just had a gut feeling that the Warren Commission was wrong, and he didn't understand rules of evidence or anything else which would have been necessary to put together a competing hypothesis.

[Echnaton]

I would have been pleasantly surprised to see anything resembling a defensible statement.  Practically anything would have been better than his "can't we all agree that what the WC said happened, didn't happen" approach.  But if a defensible assertion has not been put forward by now, it never will be. Yet, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast, so maybe....

[twik]

I find it strange that someone who clearly does believe that there was a conspiracy, and wishes to persuade other people of that, would not at least attempt to define what they think *did* happen. If a shot from the knoll makes sense to them, why not provide a diagram of it? If profmunkin does believe (or did, at the start of the thread), that there were 3 shooters, why could he not clarify where the third one was, and explain why he thinks there were six shots?

If he believes its pointless because he won't convince anyone, why contineue a thread for dozens of pages? If he does think he can win converts, why not explain what he wants to convert us to?

This seems very similar to HBs - they seem to like playing that they have some sort of overwhelming evidence just behind that curtain over there. But they never draw the curtain. I don't know if this is because, deep down, they know their pet theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, or if they just like the constant tease.

[ka9q]

I think they mainly crave the indignant attention (i.e., they like to troll).

The elitism factor is also very significant in conspiracy theorists. They like to think of themselves as so clever as to have figured out something that has long escaped the notice of the ordinary 'sheeple'. In fact, they're so extremely clever as to trigger a visceral resentment among the 'sheeple'. That (and CIA brainwashing) are the only reasons their theories are not universally accepted and their cleverness universally acclaimed.

There are countless ironies in this point of view, including the fact that one of the signs of true genius is a knack not only for solving complicated problems, but explaining their solutions to ordinary people in ways that seem almost simple and obvious. The classic example was Richard Feynmann.

It's practically a cliche in technical circles that the most brilliant breakthroughs always seem trivial in hindsight.

Most JFK assassination 'theories' are the exact opposite: taking what was actually a very simple and straightforward (albeit huge) crime and complicating it far beyond fantasy.

[SolusLupus]

Most JFK assassination 'theories' are the exact opposite: taking what was actually a very simple and straightforward (albeit huge) crime and complicating it far beyond fantasy.

That's what happens when you work backwards.  Similar to ideas about the orbit of the planets; if you start with the assumption their orbits must be perfect circles, things get all complicated when explaining their orbits.

Same with almost any idea, really.  If you want to arrange facts to match a design you really want to be true, things get overly complicated.

[gillianren]

Unless by coincidence you're right.  I mean, someone with little information but a grudge against Lee Harvey Oswald probably would have had a very easy time proving his guilt.  People trying to prove it was the CIA, LBJ (there's a very large book blaming him in new books at the library), Castro, anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, et al., have a considerably harder time.

[SolusLupus]

By coincidence, or only if you're willing to admit that you were wrong.

If you assume but test your assumption, it's no different than coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it.

[gillianren]

True enough.  I'm just saying.