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

Closed Thread
Old 25th May 2017, 12:02 PM   #3961
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,458
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:08 PM   #3962
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,285
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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:13 PM   #3963
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:16 PM   #3964
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:32 PM   #3965
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,031
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 12:47 PM   #3966
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,031
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 01:03 PM   #3967
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 01:20 PM   #3968
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,285
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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 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: 1,981
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 08:53 AM   #3970
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,031
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 09:02 AM   #3971
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 283
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 03:08 PM   #3972
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 04:51 PM   #3973
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 283
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 08:50 PM   #3974
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,981
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 07:00 AM   #3975
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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.
Let's forget for the moment that Cobb was simply reporting a rumor. She never saw Oswald at a party herself, she had some people tell her that.

And of course, this is all the more believable because we know what a partier Oswald was. That's established by his... err, well... hmm... I guess that's not established at all. In fact, quite the contrary. For instance, his rooming house housekeeper testified:

Quote:
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to him about anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No; because he wouldn't talk.
Mr. BALL. Did he say "Hello"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or, "Goodby"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wouldn't say nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, yes--I would say, "Good afternoon," and he would just maybe look at me give me a dirty look and keep walking and go on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---in a way---but all he did ever watch the television was if someone in the other rooms had it on, maybe he would come and stand at the back of the couch---not over 5 minutes and go to his room and shut the door and never say a word.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out any at night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Did he stay home every night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes---he stayed home every night---I didn't ever know of him going out. If he did, he left after I went to bed and I never knew...

Real partier type. More evidence of Oswald being a partier is from the owner of the rooming house:

Quote:
Mr. BALL. Did he eat in the kitchen with it sometimes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Occasionally, if there was no one in the kitchen, he would sit in the kitchen, but if there was anyone in there, he would take it in his room and every bit of that was put in the trash can. He never kept anything cluttered, never kept anything outside, no papers, books, or nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him eat anything but lunch meat?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I never did, just lunch meat, all he ever put in there and preserves, I think he had some preserves and milk; but he put about a half gallon of sweet milk in that box each day.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him eating his evening meal?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I don't think I had seen him but I have seen him come in and get the lunch meat and carry it into his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out nights, any?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I just really never did see that man leave that room.
...
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television every evening?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Not every evening but just every time he took a notion but maybe 95 percent of the time he would sit in his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he have any visitors?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; he never had a visitor.

He wouldn't even eat in the community kitchen if there was someone else there. Look up the word 'loner' in the dictionary and there's a picture of Oswald.

And somehow he winds up at a party in Mexico?

This is just another false memory. More than likely, it was simply someone else entirely, and the witnesses convinced themselves, after the assassination, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. It happens a lot. Well-meaning people simply make mistakes too.

Of course to conspiracy theorists, there are no mistakes of this nature. They only allow for two possibilities:
(a) It was the real Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of two men who might have been co-conspirators
(b) It was a conspirator masquerading as Lee Harvey Oswald, thereby establishing the conspiracy.

Option (c) simply doesn't exist to them:
(c) It was a simple case of mistaken identity, where the witness recalls to the best of their ability, but erroneously, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. Especially if they talk to a couple of other witnesses who are convinced it was Oswald.

Conspiracy theorists have been making a living out of mistakes such as this since the mid-1960s. The first to raise the spectre of Oswald being impersonated was Richard Popkin in his book: THE SECOND OSWALD.

The best at it is John Armstrong in his book HARVEY AND LEE. He has built up this elaborate scheme to double Oswald almost from birth, complete with a second woman impersonating Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. And of course, he half-bakes up this story from nearly every witness coming forward to say they saw Oswald somewhere.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th May 2017 at 07:28 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 11:34 AM   #3976
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,053
42 Party Professionals saw him at that party.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 11:36 AM   #3977
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,981
Yup, everyone has their pet theory.

This article mention's Gus Russo, who did extensive research and interviews with people who knew Oswald. Russo is in the "Castro was Behind It" camp, which is a quiet, but significant portion of the JFK-CT world. It comes from the same idea which all of the CT originate: Oswald couldn't have done it alone. I even hold the door open for evidence showing that at least one other person knew. That person was probably another loner/loser who probably didn't believe Oswald would go through with it, and wisely vanished from Dallas and history. This is a simple scenario not involving spies of any kind, or some larger scheme, just two guys who met in 1963, and got on well enough to go to shooting ranges on a couple of weekends in October and November.

The facts at the moment point to LHO acting alone every step of the way; the pre-shooting pattern established with the attempt on General Walker matches his actions of the morning of 11/22, bullets match his rifle, rifle found at his place of work, LHO fled the scene, murders Tippet, attempts to kill second officer during arrest.

People are convicted for less.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 27th May 2017 at 11:38 AM.
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 01:05 PM   #3978
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
the pre-shooting pattern established with the attempt on General Walker
Question for the forum. LHO was notoriously a loner. We know that. Why, though, did he tell Marina about the Walker attempt as soon as he got back that evening? Showing off? Wishing to look the hero? In the note he left for her, he told her to throw away his clothes but to preserve his papers. This is LHO fantasizing about his "Historic Diary" legacy, of course, but did he think Marina would admire his violence? Or was he tormenting her psychologically? I guess he realized that she was so vulnerable that she would never report him--part of his cruelty to her.

Last edited by OKBob; 27th May 2017 at 01:06 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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 01:37 PM   #3979
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,796
Mod Info As this thread nears 4000 posts, it is becoming slow and is putting a strain on the server. I have therefore opened a continuation thread here.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 10:12 PM.
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.