ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 25th May 2017, 12:02 PM   #3961
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,203
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is the biggest truth which CTists ignore:

Oswald only had to do it all once.

If they made him repeat those shots maybe he misses all three, maybe lands one, or he gets three head shots.:
Remember, he had four bullets, so had 4 tries.

To add to my Q and A above

Q: Why didn't he take 4 shots?
A: Because he got it done in 3.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:08 PM   #3962
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,266
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Remember, he had four bullets, so had 4 tries.

To add to my Q and A above

Q: Why didn't he take 4 shots?
A: Because he got it done in 3.
As an aside, he could have thought he'd run the rifle dry. Given how many negligent discharges occur where the shooter believed the piece to be empty (without checking the magazine or the chamber) it's entirely possible that's why LHO didn't fire the fourth round.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:13 PM   #3963
OKBob
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
IF the distance made the shot improbable (which it doesn't) it could be that LHO simply lucked out.
Another way of putting this is that all the CT talk of the probability of LHO's shots dissolves before the stubborn fact, amply shown by the physical evidence, that he did make the shots. The "did" displaces the "could" or "couldn't" in the realm of rational inquiry. After that, debates over LHO's marksman skills, the quality of his weapon, and the difficulty of the shots become something like character evidence at trial: largely irrelevant to the actus reus being weighed by the fact-finder. CTs dabble in probabilities as a way of keeping fact at arm's length, just as they confuse their inference, incredulity, and speculation with what they like to call "fact."

Last edited by OKBob; 25th May 2017 at 12:18 PM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:16 PM   #3964
OKBob
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
A: Because he got it done in 3.
And because he wasn't trying to kill anyone else.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:32 PM   #3965
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by Praktik View Post
Incredulity is ... the grease that lines the slide into the Conspiracy Pit.
Well put!
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:47 PM   #3966
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Another way of putting this is that all the CT talk of the probability of LHO's shots dissolves before the stubborn fact, amply shown by the physical evidence, that he did make the shots. The "did" displaces the "could" or "couldn't" in the realm of rational inquiry. After that, debates over LHO's marksman skills, the quality of his weapon, and the difficulty of the shots become something like character evidence at trial: largely irrelevant to the actus reus being weighed by the fact-finder. CTs dabble in probabilities as a way of keeping fact at arm's length, just as they confuse their inference, incredulity, and speculation with what they like to call "fact."
And, in fact, they dismiss your very argument above by putting the cart before the horse and calling it BEGGING THE QUESTION:

For example, one conspiracy website says about this:
In an internal Warren Commission memo, Wesley Liebeler criticised an early draft of the Warren Report, pointing out that “we should be more precise in this area [Oswald’s rifle practice], because the Commission is going to have its work in this area examined very closely”. He tacitly admitted the weakness of the evidence by begging the question: “the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so”. (http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-har...n-sharpshooter)

Liebeler's memorandum for the record suggesting revisions to the draft version of the Warren Report, stated, in part:
It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do given the present state of the record on Oswald’s rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues. The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don’t we admit instead of reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions presently set forth in the galleys. Those conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 01:03 PM   #3967
OKBob
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And, in fact, they dismiss your very argument above by putting the cart before the horse and calling it BEGGING THE QUESTION:
Yes, and we have seen on this thread and its older siblings how freely and inaccurately CTs toss around the notion of question-begging. Typically, they first learn about the fallacy from a skeptic here, spend several pages denigrating or misunderstanding it, and then finally try to turn it clumsily against their critics, like a shiny new toy they haven't quite figured out.

Certainly, if LHO's feat had been so extraordinary as to strain fair-minded credulity, the question of probabilities would have a greater role to play. But the feat was not extraordinary, alas.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 01:20 PM   #3968
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,266
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Yes, and we have seen on this thread and its older siblings how freely and inaccurately CTs toss around the notion of question-begging. Typically, they first learn about the fallacy from a skeptic here, spend several pages denigrating or misunderstanding it, and then finally try to turn it clumsily against their critics, like a shiny new toy they haven't quite figured out.

Certainly, if LHO's feat had been so extraordinary as to strain fair-minded credulity, the question of probabilities would have a greater role to play. But the feat was not extraordinary, alas.
The knee jerk reaction in my home was that LCN had hit JFK, but that was based on confirmation bias.

Neither my father or the men in the family that knew anything about the subject matter bought into the magic bullet this-and-that nonsense created out of the blue by Ctists,

When I told the old man about "back and to the left" ******** in JFK he got a good laugh out of it, and when the magic bullet CTist trajectory was being pushed, the first thing out of his mouth was that the investigators had misaligned the positions and location of JFK and Connally in the car.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 06:15 PM   #3969
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,547
Plus, Oswald was 2/3, and it is likely his first shot - when the limo was closest - missed. Nothing that screams expert shot, but show a man adjusting fire on the fly.

And finally, a quick note about the TSBD photo that MJ posted:

That was shot with a wide angle lens, it does not represent true vision.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:53 AM   #3970
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
There was a substitution but only because Klein's had run out of the 36" rifles and didn't have any more on hand to ship. This is shown to be true in the fact that the advertisement appearing in the April Issue of American Rifleman (available on newsstands in MARCH) no longer showed the illustration of a 36" rifle, but now showed the 40" rifle. Both advertisements used the same catalog number of C20-T750, nullifying No Other's bogus point that the C20-T750 catalog number was unique to the 36" rifle, and that's how we can be sure that Klein's shipped a 36" rifle with the C2766 serial number.

Yes, and on the note of shipment mistakes, I like to tell the story about what happened to me about 30 years ago. I went to visit my Mom for the Christmas holidays and wore a garish sweatshirt she had purchased for me from a Sears catalog and had shipped directly to my home.

When she saw me, she asked, "Where'd you get that god-awful ugly sweatshirt?"

I told her it was a gift. She asked who gave it to me.

I had to tell her, "You did, Mom. You bought it for me for Christmas. This came in the mail from Sears from you."

She complained, "Oh, my God. It didn't look like that in the catalog!"

We had a good laugh over it. Clearly, Sears ran out of the better looking item my Mom actually ordered and shipped whatever they had laying around as a substitute. Like I said, No Other likes to pretend this is an entirely foreign procedure in American commerce, and that because my Mom ordered a good-looking sweatshirt, that's the one I got.

Hank
Addendum: Cleaning out the basement, I just ran across a softcover book I got as a gift when I subscribed to TIME Magazine about 10 years ago. It is on the Civil War. The only reason I subscribed to TIME was because the offer included a free book on JFK, on his life, his Presidency, and the assassination.

Of course, they ran out of that JFK book and sent the CIVIL WAR book I didn't want as a substitute. I didn't return it nor cancel my subscription. I suppose NO OTHER will go to his grave arguing I got the JFK book that the TIME offer originally included, because that's what I ordered.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:02 AM   #3971
bknight
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Addendum: Cleaning out the basement, I just ran across a softcover book I got as a gift when I subscribed to TIME Magazine about 10 years ago. It is on the Civil War. The only reason I subscribed to TIME was because the offer included a free book on JFK, on his life, his Presidency, and the assassination.

Of course, they ran out of that JFK book and sent the CIVIL WAR book I didn't want as a substitute. I didn't return it nor cancel my subscription. I suppose NO OTHER will go to his grave arguing I got the JFK book that the TIME offer originally included, because that's what I ordered.

Hank
Conspicuously absent with no backup to post nonsense.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:08 PM   #3972
OKBob
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Conspicuously absent with no backup to post nonsense.
Maybe it becomes as tedious for the CTs to be here as it sometimes is for skeptics to read their endless fringe resets and Gish gallops. And I can't say that I ever saw a JFK CT on any of the JREF/ISF threads really absorb and grow from any of the criticisms that are lavished here. As I write this, Robert Harris, an alumnus of ISF, is on the alt.assassination forum challenging discussants to offer evidence that his theory (yes, the Z285 shot) is false. How many lectures did he receive on this forum about not demanding that his opponent prove a negative?
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:51 PM   #3973
bknight
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Maybe it becomes as tedious for the CTs to be here as it sometimes is for skeptics to read their endless fringe resets and Gish gallops. And I can't say that I ever saw a JFK CT on any of the JREF/ISF threads really absorb and grow from any of the criticisms that are lavished here. As I write this, Robert Harris, an alumnus of ISF, is on the alt.assassination forum challenging discussants to offer evidence that his theory (yes, the Z285 shot) is false. How many lectures did he receive on this forum about not demanding that his opponent prove a negative?
I watched the video he present on the education forum, probably the same as here, and I can see no reaction at Z285 that would indicate a shot. Another claim with merit, all in the eye of a CT.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:50 PM   #3974
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,547
And in advance of the final document dump, click-bait stories will accumulate ...

...like this one from Politico about June Cobb:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ination-215143

The main reason:

Quote:
According to other declassified files, Cobb reported to the CIA’s Mexico City station in October 1964, nearly a year after JFK’s assassination, that she had learned from a prominent Mexican writer and two other Mexican sources that they had all seen Oswald at a dance party during his trip the year before that was also attended by Cuban diplomats and others who had spoken openly of their hope that Kennedy would be assassinated. Cobb’s sources said Oswald had been at the party in the company of two other young American men, who appeared to be his traveling companions and whose identifies have never been established. The questions raised by Cobb’s reports were obvious: Had any of those people encouraged Oswald to murder JFK or offered to help him escape after the assassination? (Nothing in the previously released documents involving Cobb support theories that Castro personally ordered Kennedy’s death.)
And the beat goes on.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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