Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)
> Wm Seger - are you noticing that the bubble that surrounds you is getting smaller and smaller with every post you submit?
Nope, on the contrary, what I'm noticing is your increasing frustration with being challenged to actually prove the claims you're making and coming up short time after time, so now you're posting more and more of the above type of crap as a lame substitute. I'm also noticing that you seem to be responding to less and less of what I say, and more and more only pretending to address my points when you do respond, which hardly makes me feel like I'm the one in a shrinking bubble. In general, what I've noticed is that the following remains as true as it ever was: Nothing that you claim which appears to be true is actually conclusive of a conspiracy, and you don't seem to be able to actually prove any of the claims that would be conclusive of a conspiracy. The day that changes is the day you guys won't be called conspiracy theorists anymore, and on that same day you will no longer need to be concerned with what William Seger thinks.
> The deceptive diagram you posted has been floating around for years so it is intriguing to hear your claims that you are the author.
Dude, that is my diagram, and it's never been posted anywhere before. I just did it a couple weeks ago, intending to post it in another thread, but I didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done something similar before, since it's a pretty damned obvious thing to do, and what the photos show is also pretty damned obvious so there's really only one conclusion that can be drawn from them. After you fail to prove what you're alleging that it's not my diagram, an apology would be a nice gesture, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that (A) you don't hesitate to throw around unsubstantiated accusations; (B) after simply making a assertion about the sizes that you can't seem to demonstrate and basically just denying what the diagram clearly shows (and throwing in that false accusation for good measure), you're pretty much finished; because (C) you aren't able to produce a more accurate diagram credibly showing the path you claim.
> The Warren Commission, in the guise of staff lawyer David Belin, engaged in all the technical cartwheels you've been spinning, and could not resolve their central problem: they could not get their man down the stairs to the 2nd floor.
And yet another attempt to poison the well with insinuation and innuendo -- which seems to be one of your favorite substitutes for an actual argument -- but that claim is simple false: There was no reason Oswald couldn't have made it to the lunchroom before Baker. And talk about shrinking bubbles, what you appear to be doing with that comment is to imply that your "proof" is still valid even though you've made absolutely no attempt to address the fatal problem with it: We can't just assume that Adams' and/or Garner's perceptions and/or memories are infallible just so you can claim them as "proof" exonerating Oswald -- not in view of the mountain of evidence against him, and especially not when you have absolutely no alternate suspect or any shred of credible evidence that someone else was on the sixth floor firing Oswald's gun. It's really a shame that you can't appreciate why that's so, but the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony and they did it in exactly the same way we ask juries to do it every day: Compare all the testimony to the physical and documentary evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and derive the story that is best supported by the evidence and makes the most sense. As imperfect as that method is for finding "the truth," it has a solid track record of beating the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place, most especially including the pathological epistemology preferred by conspiracists, which you have so amply demonstrated.
> Since you are now assuming a weary tone after your arguments have consistently shown to be wanting, I will briefly review some of your "credible evidence":
> a) a deceptive 2-frame GIF which purports to explain body movement which occurs in the immediate following frames which are not included
Well, if you wanted more you should have asked, because I have done several versions with multiple frames. Here's one that shows a couple of previous frames (to prove there was no forward motion before frame 313), and several frames after that to show why the back-and-to-left cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet because it comes 1/6 second after the hit and it shows acceleration over several frames, which implies a continued force long after the bullet is gone:
Sorry, but your personal inability to comprehend what the Zapruder film actually shows does not mean that it's not credible evidence of a hit from the rear, and I guess I'll just have to deal with the wearisomeness of needing to repeat that over and over and over.
> b) a deceptive photograph of two bullets by which a comparison is attempted, even as the author can provide no details as to the accuracy of his experiment and the author admits the experiment was engaged with the results already determined.
Neither I nor Lattimer are responsible for your misunderstanding of what the tests proved: The tests proved that conspiracists were simply wrong in claiming that the SBT was impossible -- nothing more and nothing less -- and since those impossibility claims were based on nothing but their imaginations, conspiracists are reduced to just sputtering about it while trying to denigrate Lattimer.
> The author also uses an arrow to make a claim the author knows, or should know, to be false.
Lattimer showed that the base of CE399 and the test bullet were bulged outward at their bases, as would be expected for a partially flattened bullet. The fact that test samples were taken from that bulge in CE399 does not mean that the fragments in Connally didn't come from that same area, as demonstrated by the test bullets which lost some particles from that area. That's just sloppy logic on your part, not a refutation of the evidence.
> c) a deceptive anatomical comparison diagram which claims to establish a point of reference even as the different size and differing positions of the body establish that any alleged point of reference is a fantasy.
But when given every opportunity to prove that claim by demonstrating a better diagram, once again all you've got is denial and hand-waving assertions.
> I really don't have a problem with someone trying to argue these points or ginning up all the deceptive "credible evidence" they wish - hey, we all need a hobby - but what I don't understand is why you feel the need to be so dismissive and arrogant as you do so.
Hmmm, I'm going to refrain from answering that question since that might imply to you that it's actually relevant to anything and give you another opportunity to divert, and also because it would hard to do without violating the terms of service here.
<EDIT TO ADD> Retroactive "snark alert" on deliberately dismissive and arrogant remark.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read