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 assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 17th June 2018, 10:55 AM   #561
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You realize that this hearsay, don't you?
In addition to the hearsay objection, it's flatly inconsistent with what Bowers testified to under oath. So there is a compound credibility problem: the credibility of Bowers (if he really told this to friends) and the credibility of the reporting friends. In other words, with respect to Bowers, if he did say this to his friends, was he lying to them or was he lying to the authorities and the Warren Commission in 1963-64? And with respect to his friends, are they lying now?

Here's where CTs say (with regard to the first problem), "Yeah, but Bowers was afraid to tell the truth to the authorities or the Warren Commission because [insert some reason]."

But when Howard Brennan explains that he did not positively identify Oswald at a lineup because he was fearful of Communist retaliation on his family, the CTs laugh and discredit him as an obvious liar.

In other words, CTs can pick their witnesses and reject others based on shifting credibility criteria that inherently beg the question in favor of conspiracy.

Last edited by OKBob; 17th June 2018 at 11:04 AM.
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 17th June 2018, 11:05 AM   #562
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You don’t get it do you.

Take Mrs. Markham as an example. She is NOT credible and her testimony is NOT credible. Still, she was a witness. Still, she gave testimony.

You are promulgating the rather odd idea that all witnesses that you find NOT credible, are NOT witnesses. That all the testimonies you find NOT credible are NOT testimonies.

Isn’t that bat **** crazy, Axxman?

Really?
If she's not credible then she is automatically eliminated as a witness.

This is why I don't try to stick a duck in my gas tank, it's bad for my truck, and it's not good for the duck.
__________________
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 17th June 2018, 11:20 AM   #563
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
I've actually worked a crime scene while on a ride-along. POTENTIAL witnesses are tracked down and interviewed. We talked to 5 people and got 5 variations of the story. Later we sat down and picked out all of the common threads(the make, model, color of the car, descriptions of the men who got into it, approximate times, and a few other details).

One witness was certain that the driver wore blue Member's Only jacket, but later we reviewed security tapes and neither suspect wore a jacket of any kind.

In the CT world we'd put out an APB on a third suspect in a blue Member's Only jacket even though only one witness reported it, and the video evidence did not support his claim.

In the Cop-World we just chalked it up to the fact this was late at night, and there is a difference between someone "Seeing" something, and someone "Observing" something.

DPD, interviewed hundreds of people that day and in the days following the assassination, and the murder of Tippit. The FBI followed right behind them, and later select witnesses were interviewed by the Warren Commission. I can't imagine how tedious, and frustrating that must have been for the detectives who had to process those witness reports.

The witness testimony would be filtered to those who's stories are consistent with the physical evidence. In the JFK Assassination the physical evidence is solid, the shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and Lee Oswald was the killer.
__________________
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 17th June 2018, 11:24 AM   #564
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If she's not credible then she is automatically eliminated as a witness.
Yes. Or, to use a courtroom concept, either her testimony is so unreliable that the judge refuses to allow her on the stand, or she testifies and the judge instructs the jury that her testimony may be given any weight the jury chooses.

We, as latter-day fact-finders, play both roles. We may consider proffered testimony to be so profoundly unreliable (as with Jean Hill) that, in our historical imaginations, we simply won't allow her "on the stand." Or (as with a Parkland doctor who says he saw a wound in the back of JFK's head) we allow the testimony but discount it--that is, impeach it--according to its credibility or lack thereof. In the case of the Parkland doctor, we know that such testimony conflicts with the autopsy report, photos, and X-rays, and that the Parkland emergency team did not turn JFK over and was not performing an investigative examination. Hence, that testimony is admitted but discounted to a low forensic value.

Last edited by OKBob; 17th June 2018 at 11:25 AM.
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 17th June 2018, 11:27 AM   #565
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
I have also been in a situation where theories are formed before all the evidence was in. We had a theft from our downstairs lot. My boss looked at one security camera and assumed the guilty party was part of a group that pulled in at the time the items went missing. He TALKED four members of our staff into believing these people were guilty, and was ready to make accusations that would have gotten him sued.

So I check all of the security cameras.

We had an intruder who came in just before the group arrived. He waited in a dark corner until they left, and stole the items.

For the rest of the week my boss would grouse about wondering if the thief was working with the group of people (we wasn't).

The longer it takes to interview a witness the more the story will change. If two witnesses are allowed time to confer with each other the truth often suffers. This is just a fact.
__________________
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 17th June 2018, 11:29 AM   #566
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is a book called Beyond The Fence Line that has some rare (even for the internet!) information about Lee Bowers. Apparently a couple of his friends claimed that Bowers told them that he saw more activity behind the grassy knoll than indicated to the WC and Mark Lane.

You mean this book? "Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy".

About Ed Hoffman, not Lee Bowers?

http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/ed_hoffman/beyond.html

Perhaps Manifesto will now better understand why I don't trust conspiracy theorists or conspiracy authors in their claims.

Or perhaps not. He might just shrug and think, "Lee Bowers, Ed Hoffman, what's the difference?" It certainly didn't make a difference to Micah Java to get the subject of the book correct.

And, as pointed out by Axxman300 above, if a witness made a mistake like this, it would be eagerly endorsed by CTs everywhere and if he (or she) could be invited to CT conferences, so much the better. It would probably even be the foundation of a book or two. Or perhaps a whole series by Jim Marrs.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th June 2018 at 11:37 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:35 AM   #567
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
In the CT world we'd put out an APB on a third suspect in a blue Member's Only jacket even though only one witness reported it, and the video evidence did not support his claim.
Excellent analogy. And so CTs sometimes fault the DPD for failing to follow some fantasized ideal protocol (the fallacy of If I Ran the Zoo), and at other times they deride the DPD because, though the DPD followed the standard protocol you outline, it did not give full credence to every scrap of outlier testimony, such as the memory of the Member's Only jacket (the fallacy of chipping away at the null with a bent toothpick and thereafter declaring victory).

Last edited by OKBob; 17th June 2018 at 11:43 AM.
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 17th June 2018, 11:36 AM   #568
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Yes. Or, to use a courtroom concept, either her testimony is so unreliable that the judge refuses to allow her on the stand, or she testifies and the judge instructs the jury that her testimony may be given any weight the jury chooses.

We, as latter-day fact-finders, play both roles. We may consider proffered testimony to be so profoundly unreliable (as with Jean Hill) that, in our historical imaginations, we simply won't allow her "on the stand." Or (as with a Parkland doctor who says he saw a wound in the back of JFK's head) we allow the testimony but discount it--that is, impeach it--according to its credibility or lack thereof. In the case of the Parkland doctor, we know that such testimony conflicts with the autopsy report, photos, and X-rays, and that the Parkland emergency team did not turn JFK over and was not performing an investigative examination. Hence, that testimony is admitted but discounted to a low forensic value.
Correct.

It's not that we ignore the testimony, we evaluate it first.

In the case of the Parkland ER doctor, he maintains he saw what he saw, but he was not a pathologist. The other doctor who stood right next to him the entire time says the wounds are consistent with the autopsy findings. So in this case you have two experienced medical professionals evaluating the wounds differently (this is why you should always get a second opinion before a surgery BTW). In 1963, Parkland ER handled over 400 gun-shot victims, which was about average, so it's not like either doctor had never seen someone shot before. The difference is that the patient was the President of the United States, and both men were trapped in the room when the First Lady came in with the priest to have Last Rites performed.

Medical professional or not, that had to be overwhelming.
__________________
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 17th June 2018, 11:45 AM   #569
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
My claim was and is that witnesses reportedly saw suspect shooters and suspect weapons behind the fence on the knoll. Nothing else, only this.
Yes, we understand what your claim is.

What we're waiting for is the names of the witnesses who reported that in a timely fashion, and for you to name them, cite their testimony, and argue for their veracity.

The first three you named didn't make the cut.
  • Hoffman because you couldn't establish he was an assassination witness,
  • Bowers because he never mentioned seeing a shooter or a weapon at any time,
  • Hill because she specifically denied in TV and radio interviews on 11/22/63 that she ever saw a shooter. And even in the speech you cited, she didn't mention multiple shooters, only one.
We're still waiting for your evidence in support of your claim.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 11:57 AM   #570
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Correct.

It's not that we ignore the testimony, we evaluate it first.

In the case of the Parkland ER doctor, he maintains he saw what he saw, but he was not a pathologist. The other doctor who stood right next to him the entire time says the wounds are consistent with the autopsy findings. So in this case you have two experienced medical professionals evaluating the wounds differently (this is why you should always get a second opinion before a surgery BTW). In 1963, Parkland ER handled over 400 gun-shot victims, which was about average, so it's not like either doctor had never seen someone shot before. The difference is that the patient was the President of the United States, and both men were trapped in the room when the First Lady came in with the priest to have Last Rites performed.

Medical professional or not, that had to be overwhelming.
And looking at the video of Dr. Perry's press conference looked as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. Yes he described the exit wound on the posterior, but I think he can be excused as he was in that pressure cooker until he pronounced the President was dead.

Last edited by bknight; 17th June 2018 at 11:58 AM.
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 17th June 2018, 12:26 PM   #571
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,182
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Excellent analogy. And so CTs sometimes fault the DPD for failing to follow some fantasized ideal protocol (the fallacy of If I Ran the Zoo), and at other times they deride the DPD because, though the DPD followed the standard protocol you outline, it did not give full credence to every scrap of outlier testimony, such as the memory of the Member's Only jacket (the fallacy of chipping away at the null with a bent toothpick and thereafter declaring victory).
Additionally, the witness probably did see a person who had been wearing a blue Members Only jacket, but it was at an earlier time or was completely unrelated to the crime or both.

Memory get confused, things from different times and places get conflated. Anyone who doesn't believe or understand this should watch this video to show just how unreliable eye-witness testimony can be.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 17th June 2018, 12:26 PM   #572
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,967
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You mean this book? "Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy".

About Ed Hoffman, not Lee Bowers?

http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/ed_hoffman/beyond.html

Perhaps Manifesto will now better understand why I don't trust conspiracy theorists or conspiracy authors in their claims.

Or perhaps not. He might just shrug and think, "Lee Bowers, Ed Hoffman, what's the difference?" It certainly didn't make a difference to Micah Java to get the subject of the book correct.

And, as pointed out by Axxman300 above, if a witness made a mistake like this, it would be eagerly endorsed by CTs everywhere and if he (or she) could be invited to CT conferences, so much the better. It would probably even be the foundation of a book or two. Or perhaps a whole series by Jim Marrs.

Hank
Beyond The Fence Line also contains information about Lee Bowers.

MicahJava 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 17th June 2018, 12:49 PM   #573
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
...or she testifies and the judge instructs the jury that her testimony may be given any weight the jury chooses.
And it usually becomes the opposing counsel to try to impeach the evidence by causing the jury to question her credibility and thus naturally give it less weight. It's not the tack counsel always takes, but it's certainly common practice. Most witnesses in a court case are deposed prior to the trial. What they say under oath at the deposition is admissible at trial, and if the witness changes her story -- even innocently -- from what she said in the deposition, this can indicate that her testimony is not necessarily reliable as a record of the facts. A person is a lay witness simply by virtue of having perceived events with her senses. Whether she reports accurately what happened is entirely another matter. The notion that we would not consider witness credibility in weighing the evidence her testimony supplies is simply daft. Credibility is not at all separated from the probative value of the testimony.
JayUtah 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 17th June 2018, 01:03 PM   #574
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Memory get confused, things from different times and places get conflated. Anyone who doesn't believe or understand this should watch this video to show just how unreliable eye-witness testimony can be.
Memory isn't a matter of recall, like a photograph or video. The mind remembers things by attaching them to a cognitive framework. Regardless of what was seen or heard, the mind tries to make it make sense and connect smoothly, even if that means simplifying the recall or rearranging things in time and space to fit the framework. The witness often thinks he has to be the one to create a narrative that contains all the snippets of sensory input and will invent what "must" be true in order for that coherence to arise. Thus the facts become subservient to the narrative. This is especially problematic when the interviewer (e.g., police) spoon-feed false bits of narrative that the witness is supposed to accommodate, or when other interviewers innocently do the equivalent. Interviewing witnesses for evidentiary purposes is an art.

Another common fallacy is that memories of events that later come to have great public significance are necessarily remembered with greater accuracy and clarity. They are not. "How could he forget (or miss) a thing like that, considering what was going on?" is really not a guiding factor in real-world evidence via eyewitness testimony.
JayUtah 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 17th June 2018, 02:09 PM   #575
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
[...] Most witnesses in a court case are deposed prior to the trial. What they say under oath at the deposition is admissible at trial, and if the witness changes her story -- even innocently -- from what she said in the deposition, this can indicate that her testimony is not necessarily reliable as a record of the facts. A person is a lay witness simply by virtue of having perceived events with her senses. [...]
Exactly. So let's take Jean Hill as an example of our witness on the historiographical stand. She is sworn in, with her hand on a copy of Herodotus. First, we, as cross-examining counsel, may impeach her 1990s claim to having seen a gunman on the knoll by reading to the jury her "deposition" statements, in the press and to authorities, in November 1963 and in her later WC testimony. We may also impeach her testimony as physically unlikely because the Zapruder film shows her looking away from the knoll (I believe) at the critical moment.
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 17th June 2018, 03:30 PM   #576
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You don’t get it do you.

Take Mrs. Markham as an example. She is NOT credible and her testimony is NOT credible. Still, she was a witness. Still, she gave testimony.
Markham is credible. CTs cite anything and everything in an attempt to throw her statements out but only because she witnessed the shooting of Tippit and picked Oswald out of a lineup.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are promulgating the rather odd idea that all witnesses that you find NOT credible, are NOT witnesses. That all the testimonies you find NOT credible are NOT testimonies.
That's not what he said, and that's not what we're saying. You made a claim. You cited Jean Hill as a witness supporting that claim. She doesn't. Not least because her credibility is in question, but also because -- in the speech you cited that she delivered to a rapt audience of CTs -- she said she saw one shooter. Not multiple shooters with multiple weapons.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th June 2018 at 03:44 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 03:46 PM   #577
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Beyond The Fence Line also contains information about Lee Bowers.
Show me.

Name them. Cite the evidence. Argue for its veracity.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2018, 04:11 PM   #578
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,024
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Take Mrs. Markham as an example.
Absolutely credible. Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippit and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun? He still had it with him, you know.

Mrs. Markham
Consilience
Burden of proof
Null hypothesis
Evidence

The things that keep CTs dishonest. Unless you're going to change all of a sudden?
RoboTimbo 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 17th June 2018, 04:24 PM   #579
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,182
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Where are these other countries that don't censor random stuff?
Your claim... your burden.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 17th June 2018, 04:38 PM   #580
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Memory isn't a matter of recall, like a photograph or video. The mind remembers things by attaching them to a cognitive framework. Regardless of what was seen or heard, the mind tries to make it make sense and connect smoothly, even if that means simplifying the recall or rearranging things in time and space to fit the framework. The witness often thinks he has to be the one to create a narrative that contains all the snippets of sensory input and will invent what "must" be true in order for that coherence to arise. Thus the facts become subservient to the narrative. This is especially problematic when the interviewer (e.g., police) spoon-feed false bits of narrative that the witness is supposed to accommodate, or when other interviewers innocently do the equivalent. Interviewing witnesses for evidentiary purposes is an art.

Another common fallacy is that memories of events that later come to have great public significance are necessarily remembered with greater accuracy and clarity. They are not. "How could he forget (or miss) a thing like that, considering what was going on?" is really not a guiding factor in real-world evidence via eyewitness testimony.
20 years ago my friend and I saw a UFO. Over the years his version of what we saw has changed dramatically. His version of the "craft" has evolved to conform with the "black triangle" UFO's that have become common since the X-Files debuted. He believes in that stuff whereas I no longer do. I don't have the heart to tell him I learned later that the DEA has blimps, or lighter-than-air vehicles that were operating in the county at the time.

Memory is a funny thing. Most alive in 1963 can tell you where they were, and what they were doing when they learned that JFK was shot. Some people have vivid memories, others just remember the primary aspects. The same is true for me with the Challenger accident, and 9/11. But I've noticed that many of my 9/11 memories are not as clear as they once were.
__________________
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 17th June 2018, 05:33 PM   #581
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Another common fallacy is that memories of events that later come to have great public significance are necessarily remembered with greater accuracy and clarity. They are not. "How could he forget (or miss) a thing like that, considering what was going on?" is really not a guiding factor in real-world evidence via eyewitness testimony.
A type of this more-significant-more-memorable fallacy is exploded every academic year for law students studying evidence. The professor arranges to have an individual burst noisily into the room, run to the front of the class, fire off a cap pistol, and then flee out the nearest exit. Student memories of this significant event, tested just a few minutes after, are remarkably divergent--including what the intruder was wearing and how many pistol shots were fired.

Last edited by OKBob; 17th June 2018 at 05:37 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 17th June 2018, 05:37 PM   #582
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
A type of this more-significant-more-memorable fallacy is exploded every academic year for law students studying evidence. The professor arranges to have an individual burst noisily into the room, run to the front of the class, fire off a cap pistol, and then flee out the nearest exit. Student memories of this significant event, tested just a few minutes after, are remarkably divergent--including what the invader was wearing and how many pistol shots were fired.
I've been both the audience and the perpetrator for such events. Some fun! When I was the perp, a surprising number of students "identified" me as Hispanic. Ethnically, I'm essentially a Viking.
JayUtah 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 17th June 2018, 05:52 PM   #583
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I've been both the audience and the perpetrator for such events. Some fun! When I was the perp, a surprising number of students "identified" me as Hispanic. Ethnically, I'm essentially a Viking.
Hilarious and good illustration. Indeed, it might be argued that the more significant the event is, the more confusing might be any cognitive disruption. If one's expectation is to view the President and First Lady passing by in a limousine, and suddenly there are shots, crowd chaos, and a motorcade speeding off, this traumatic reversal of expectations might leave behind all manner of fragmented, disordered recollections.
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 17th June 2018, 08:11 PM   #584
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,024
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
The things that keep CTs dishonest. Unless you're going to change all of a sudden?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Because you people refuse to honestly deal with the medical evidence,
I guess the CTs aren't going to change.
RoboTimbo 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 17th June 2018, 09:21 PM   #585
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Because you people refuse to honestly deal with the medical evidence, I will talk about the value of pirating media.
We have dealt with your version of the medical evidence honestly.

You are wrong.

You do not have enough evidence to substantiate your claim, and it is clear from your "work" that you do not understand the material, and worse you claim that the material is intentionally inaccurate, and or fabricated. Your ONLY evidence of fabrication comes solely from CT books and websites. Worse, while you believe the evidence is unreliable this does not stop you from citing it AS BEING RELIABLE, and you can't have it both ways.

Next, there is your jaw-dropping inability to grasp ballistics, not only do you not grasp the force a 6.5x52mm round traveling at 2,700fps had on the skull, you also contend that a second shot struck JKF in the back of the head, and this this shot was made with a subsonic, small caliber, silenced weapon. Forget for a second that there is no visual evidence of a second GSW to the back of his head on ANY of the films; to make a shot with the available .22, 9mm, or .45 caliber weapons that could be fit with a silencer in 1963 is just asking too much from both the weapon, and the man making the shot.

In 1963 a silenced weapon was for close-range killing, no more than 30 yards, usually less. And we know Oswald was closer than any of the other possible building locations, and hitting JFK in the head would have not only proved a conspiracy, but proved there was a God because a supreme being is the only one who could make that shot in my opinion. Throw in the fact that the bullet would have been found immediately during the autopsy, and your theory goes down the drain.

And finally it needs to be restated: YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL OF THE AUTOPSY MATERIALS AND LOGIC DICTATES THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE ARE IN NO CREDIBLE POSITION TO MAKE ANY CLAIM THAT IS COUNTER TO THE ORIGINAL AUTOPSY FINDINGS.

The available pictures are not enough to make an evaluation beyond confirming that the President was shot in the head by a high-powered rifle. X-rays on the internet are always a problem because they lack the depth one has when handling the original slide. Then there is your willing misinterpretations of the photographs that you have posted here, the most glaring example is claiming that they didn't saw the skull cap off to remove the brain, while the bone of the forehead in that photograph has clearly been sawed clean. So you lack the ability to read the medical information you are incapable of evaluating the photographs honestly.

So no, we don't take your medical "evidence" seriously.
__________________
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 18th June 2018, 10:40 AM   #586
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
If one's expectation is to view the President and First Lady passing by in a limousine, and suddenly there are shots, crowd chaos, and a motorcade speeding off, this traumatic reversal of expectations might leave behind all manner of fragmented, disordered recollections.
Indeed, it's at first surprising because it's unexpected, and that surprise changes your focus. Then later some unexpected event can be given significance that it didn't have in the moment because of the import of the consequences, not necessarily the import of the circumstances. I've met a number of U.S. presidents, and I remember the details of those meetings reasonably well because it was expected, and the events generally conformed to expectations. Had anything out of the ordinary happened such that my mindset had to shift rapidly, I doubt I would be any better positioned to correctly recall those anomalous events than for an expected event. Even in my profession, dealing with highly-trained systems operators, you run into a sort of "fog" as these operators cope with entirely unexpected occurrences. I don't know how many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses felt their own lives might also have been in danger, but that too factors into whether a witness is calmly collecting and interpreting information, or running for shelter.

Further, being interrogated repeatedly after the fact about those events by government authorities and media creates a greater urgency to recall details, which may not be matched by the ability. My understanding is that this is why a witness is asked whether she has ever been deposed before: so that familiarity with, or anxiety over, the process is documented as a potential factor in her later credibility.

Then as one becomes associated with a noteworthy event, one is paid greatly more attention than would otherwise be the case. And there then arises the desire to justify that attention -- if it is wanted -- with an enhanced, "Yes, I saw the whole thing," mindset. The more one's story wants to be heard, the more some are compelled -- consciously or unconsciously -- to make it a better story.

Anyone dealing with eyewitness testimony has to be well aware of these factors and know how to recognize them, if they occur, from the testimony alone, if not by unspoken cues during an interview. I haven't seen that conspiracy authors generally display the appropriate awareness.
JayUtah 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 18th June 2018, 10:42 AM   #587
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
My claim was that there is witnesses reporting observing suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll.

I,m NOT claiming this as ”proof” of shooters with rifles on the knoll.
Provide evidence of these witnesses observing suspect shooters.
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 18th June 2018, 11:03 AM   #588
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
[...] Anyone dealing with eyewitness testimony has to be well aware of these factors and know how to recognize them, if they occur, from the testimony alone, if not by unspoken cues during an interview. I haven't seen that conspiracy authors generally display the appropriate awareness.
Thanks for this elaboration. And what goes for witnesses under conditions of reversed historic-moment expectations (as it were) also goes, I think, for investigators and law enforcement. A standard CT tactic is to argue, in essence: "The more important the event, the better the investigation should be, so an investigation of a presidential killing should call forth superlative effort and results. Ergo, any signs of error in the JFK investigation are evidence of gross incompetence or even conspiracy and cover-up."

This is a variant of what you've called If I Ran the Zoo, and it's also a failure to realize that under stressful conditions of high visibility and momentous consequences--where the usual investigatory protocol might be accelerated or pressed to its limits, and investigators from multiple jurisdictions (local and federal) might be unintentionally impeding each other--official error might be more likely to occur than not. Let alone the rather nasty little implication that lurks in this CT argument: "If the president is killed, we should expect topflight work. If John Q Citizen is murdered, well ..."

Last edited by OKBob; 18th June 2018 at 11:07 AM.
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 18th June 2018, 11:38 AM   #589
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Looking at all of the footage shot during the assassination that continued into the minutes afterword you can see three or four dozen people dash to the grassy knoll. Many of them are DPD officers. Then if you read the statements many of those people made the level of shock and confusion is staggering.

The one thing that is clear is that the police on scene went right to work getting statements quickly, and isolating the TSBD as the source of the gunfire since it was the only place where multiple people saw a rifleman. They had officers inside the building between 90 seconds and 2 minutes after the last shot was fired, one even encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom (which is from the steps on Elm Street). Reporters are also right there in the plaza, and even inside the TSBD (again, one reporter encountered Oswald asking him where the nearest payphone was).

I don't have the time frame solid, but within a half-hour or more they had Dealey Plaza and the TSBD shut down. That's not bad.

The followup interviews took days to complete due to the number of witnesses on the street and inside the building. This was a massive amount of work, and no doubt some mistakes were made. No doubt some of the detectives and beat cops had short tempers, and shorter fuses making some witnesses feel intimidated. But in the end the forensics are solid, and those pieces of evidence have held up under repeated scrutiny for 55 years.

I don't think the DPD got enough credit for the doo-doo sandwich they were handed. And yes, the made mistakes, and many police protocols in place today stem from those mistakes. In particular is the disastrous choice by the DPD Chief to be "Open and Transparent" at every step of the investigation, including allowing the press to roam mostly free within the DPD HQ, and parading Oswald in front of them whenever they moved him around. This openness to the press allowed Ruby to waltz right in and kill Oswald on that Sunday. You didn't see any police department repeat this mistake from 1964 up until today.

On the other hand, DPD got their end of the job done.
__________________
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 18th June 2018, 12:08 PM   #590
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Thanks for this elaboration. And what goes for witnesses under conditions of reversed historic-moment expectations (as it were) also goes, I think, for investigators and law enforcement. A standard CT tactic is to argue, in essence: "The more important the event, the better the investigation should be, so an investigation of a presidential killing should call forth superlative effort and results. Ergo, any signs of error in the JFK investigation are evidence of gross incompetence or even conspiracy and cover-up."

This is a variant of what you've called If I Ran the Zoo, and it's also a failure to realize that under stressful conditions of high visibility and momentous consequences--where the usual investigatory protocol might be accelerated or pressed to its limits, and investigators from multiple jurisdictions (local and federal) might be unintentionally impeding each other--official error might be more likely to occur than not. Let alone the rather nasty little implication that lurks in this CT argument: "If the president is killed, we should expect topflight work. If John Q Citizen is murdered, well ..."
Exactly one of manifesto's rants, "how could this have been that sloppy and error filled"

He really rails on everyone, not stopping to think, that maybe just maybe the investigation was handled in the best manner due to the (then) current situation.
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 18th June 2018, 12:56 PM   #591
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,529
It WAS sloppy and error filled! No one even stuck their finger in the barrel or bothered to read suggested money order protocols. Therefore Oswald was innocent.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 08:20 PM   #592
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Exactly one of manifesto's rants, "how could this have been that sloppy and error filled"
Where do I make one of these ”rants”?

Show me.

Quote:
He really rails on everyone, not stopping to think, that maybe just maybe the investigation was handled in the best manner due to the (then) current situation.
Where do I ”rail” on whom not thinking that the investigation was ”handled in the best manner due to the (then) current situation”?

Example?
manifesto 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 18th June 2018, 08:39 PM   #593
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,024
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
To knowingly obstruct the truth of the assassination of JFK is taking part in the assassination as accessory after the fact.
Are you confessing to your complicity?
RoboTimbo 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 18th June 2018, 08:53 PM   #594
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Where do I make one of these ”rants”?

Show me.

Where do I ”rail” on whom not thinking that the investigation was ”handled in the best manner due to the (then) current situation”?

Example?
I don't have your posts linked, so I will not link anything, but you know where you have ranted about "the crime of the century and the following aspects were not done in the manner which CT's have indicated that they should have been done.

Now as to your railing, take the DPD in the manner of handling evidence, same for the FBI, same for the autopsy, same for the Secret Service. Shall I continue?

ETA: instead of attempting to deflect criticism of your post why not take some time to answer my question:

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
My claim was that there is witnesses reporting observing suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll.

I,m NOT claiming this as ”proof” of shooters with rifles on the knoll.
Provide evidence of these witnesses observing suspect shooters.

Last edited by bknight; 18th June 2018 at 09:02 PM. Reason: Added comment
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 18th June 2018, 09:10 PM   #595
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Where do I make one of these ”rants”?
I'm more interested in your response to the substantive point that Jay, I, and others are making about the problem of imposing extremely high standards on the investigative response to a high-profile occurrence. Whether you've ranted or not is not the point. I think you can take it when a critic here characterizes some of your posts as ranting or railing.
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 18th June 2018, 09:12 PM   #596
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Are you confessing to your complicity?
As I said, inverting Reality itself.
manifesto 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 18th June 2018, 09:14 PM   #597
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I'm more interested in your response to the substantive point that Jay, I, and others are making about the problem of imposing extremely high standards on the investigative response to a high-profile occurrence. Whether you've ranted or not is not the point. I think you can take it when a critic here characterizes some of your posts as ranting or railing.
Where do I ”impose extremely high standards on the investigative response to a high profile occurrence”?
manifesto 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 18th June 2018, 09:18 PM   #598
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
To knowingly obstruct the truth of the assassination of JFK is taking part in the assassination as accessory after the fact.
.
That makes you an accessory after the fact.

If there was a conspiracy - Oswald was in on it, and was the shooter. The multiple gunmen nonsense, and the ensuing cover-up-palooza has effectively destroyed any chance to find evidence of an actual conspiracy.

If there was a conspiracy, and the CIA was involved, why has it never occurred to you, or any CTist that the CIA is also behind those conspiracy theories?

How does it feel to be a useful idiot-tool of the National Security State?
__________________
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 18th June 2018, 09:22 PM   #599
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I don't have your posts linked, so I will not link anything, but you know where you have ranted about "the crime of the century and the following aspects were not done in the manner which CT's have indicated that they should have been done.
No, I do not. Cite it and make your point.

Stop whining.

Quote:
Now as to your railing, take the DPD in the manner of handling evidence, same for the FBI, same for the autopsy, same for the Secret Service. Shall I continue?
Yes, you should continue by presenting specific examples of me doing what you are accusing me of doing.

And stop whining.

Quote:
ETA: instead of attempting to deflect criticism of your post why not take some time to answer my question:



Provide evidence of these witnesses observing suspect shooters.
I have answered this a multiple of times. Do you want me to cite it? Again, I wrote:
My claim was that there is witnesses reporting observing suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll.

I,m NOT claiming this as ”proof” of shooters with rifles on the knoll.
What of this is that you do not understand, bknight?

Be specific. No whining.
manifesto 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 18th June 2018, 09:57 PM   #600
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I have answered this a multiple of times. Do you want me to cite it? Again, I wrote:
My claim was that there is witnesses reporting observing suspect shooters with suspect weapons on the knoll.

I,m NOT claiming this as ”proof” of shooters with rifles on the knoll.
What of this is that you do not understand, bknight?

What nobody with a basic command of logic understands is why anyone would cite unreliable witnesses to support their theory. An unreliable witness is worse than no witness because each one you list sets your argument backwards.
__________________
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 06:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.