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 1st December 2013, 02:55 PM   #121
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
I want to talk about the Fox "News" special, "Fox News Reporting: 50 Years of Questions; the JFK Assassination." I have not read all the JFK conspiracy posts, and the forum's search feature is somewhat limited, so it is possible this, ahem, report may have been discussed elsewhere.

It begins with Bill Hemmer giving an intro in which he says:
Quote:
Fifty years later, why do so many have questions about what happened during those six seconds in Dallas? You're about to see why.
The program went on to present an "explanation" that, as far as I know, is unknown to the general public and therefore could not possibly be "why ... so many have questions."

The reenactment is based upon the work of John Orr, a former Department of Justice attorney. Orr's thesis is that the head shot came from the top of the County Records Building Annex. His own re-creation basically has an assassin making a bullseye by shooting through a tree, but this little tidbit is overlooked. Orr also maintains that he discovered something that forensic pathologists missed, namely, a circular disc that separated from the bullet, indicating the fatal shot was not fired by Oswald.

Dr. Michael Baden said that this was just a bullet fragment. But Fox News suggested that Orr's thesis is supported by Dr. Cyril Wecht. Now perhaps Wecht does support Orr, but this would mean that Wecht was mistaken in his long-standing opinion that Kennedy was shot from the front; it may also mean that Wecht was one of the pathologists who missed a key piece of evidence.

As a trial attorney, Orr would no doubt understand the importance of an expert witness being qualified to give an opinion. There is nothing in the Fox News report to suggest that Orr has any qualifications in matters such as ballistics or pathology or crime reconstruction. Moreover, his trial work had nothing to do with firearms; he was with the Antitrust Division of the DOJ and so the only crime he might have investigated was the white-collar variety.

In other words, if Orr tried to testify to his thesis, he'd be laughed out of court. But Fox News gave him a soapbox.
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
-- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North

"Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

Last edited by Brown; 1st December 2013 at 03:00 PM.
Brown 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 2nd December 2013, 08:56 PM   #122
dreitzes
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Heck he could have yelled out a list of names on any of the occasions he spoke to the press before he was killed. If the 'conspirators' wanted to silence him they sure took their sweet time about it.

As for Oswald's denials; they aren't that strange. Look at the case of the murderers of Lee Rigby in the UK. The suspects have pleaded not guilty despite a wealth of evidence the Dallas police could only dream of:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153273
Instead of getting up in front of all those reporters, microphones, and cameras, and playing dumb, he could have simply said, "I'm being framed. Talk to [insert name here] and you will find the real killer." Everything would have changed in a heartbeat.

Instead, he claimed he had no idea what was going on. Although he had drawn a gun on Officer Nick McDonald in front of a dozen eyewitnesses in the Texas Theatre, he claimed he'd been arrested solely because he'd once lived in the Soviet Union.

Dave
dreitzes 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 4th December 2013, 01:42 PM   #123
lane99
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 684
Confirmation Bias

Suffering from which would be anyone who believes that because Oswald did not spontaneously blurt out any bona fide details of a conspiracy as he was being paraded in front of the media, that somehow suggests no conspiracy existed.

Oswald was not admitting involvement in the crime at that point. Though he DID imply he was being framed. Which is all an innocent person would know. To have gone further and name the real killer- and to correct about it- would have been incriminating and undercut his denial of involvement.
.
.
__________________
Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.


Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi
lane99 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 4th December 2013, 02:44 PM   #124
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by lane99 View Post
Suffering from which would be anyone who believes that because Oswald did not spontaneously blurt out any bona fide details of a conspiracy as he was being paraded in front of the media, that somehow suggests no conspiracy existed.

Oswald was not admitting involvement in the crime at that point. Though he DID imply he was being framed. Which is all an innocent person would know. To have gone further and name the real killer- and to correct about it- would have been incriminating and undercut his denial of involvement..
.
When you're nabbed carrying a firearm, and you tried to draw the weapon when arrested, and the arresting officer's agency had just lost an officer to gunfire from a guy that looked a bit like you, and the gun you were carrying just happens to have been recently fired, positing that the poor soul was some innocent swept up in conspiracy is a bit of a stretch.

LHO did nothing more than what the run-of-the-mill offender does, which pretty much comes down to "Who?, Me?"
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 4th December 2013, 05:02 PM   #125
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When you're nabbed carrying a firearm, and you tried to draw the weapon when arrested, and the arresting officer's agency had just lost an officer to gunfire from a guy that looked a bit like you, and the gun you were carrying just happens to have been recently fired, positing that the poor soul was some innocent swept up in conspiracy is a bit of a stretch.

LHO did nothing more than what the run-of-the-mill offender does, which pretty much comes down to "Who?, Me?"
Well he did play a bit of the "I'm the victim here" with his ""They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union."
bynmdsue 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 21st January 2014, 07:57 PM   #126
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Thumbs down Commentary on Reitzes

economisting (e kon’ o mist’ ing) 1. The act or process of converting limited evidence into grand claims by means of rhetorical ploys, especially punning, multiplicity of meanings, equivocation. 2. The belief or practice that empirical evidence can only confirm and never disconfirm a favored theory. 3. Conclusions that are theory-driven, not evidence-based. See also confirmation bias, painting with a broad brush, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, marketing, post-modern critical theory.

Edward Tufte


This article is not to be tossed aside lightly. It is to be hurled with great force. From the first sentence, it takes a propagandistic tone:
It has been called the mother of all conspiracy theories: the belief that the vibrant, widely admired 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was brutally cut down not by a lone gunman with inscrutable motives, but by a shadowy cabal of—take your pick—mobsters, Communists, radical right-wingers, traitorous CIA operatives, or mutinous members of the military-industrial complex.
In the eighties, Ronald Reagan said that the budget cuts he proposed would not hurt the “truly needy.” In the nineties, Phil Gramm said that we’d be hearing “horror stories” about the effects of welfare reform. Reagan did not say how the truly needy were different from the needy and Gramm did not say that the stories we would hear were false. “Truly needy” is best replaced by “needy,” “horror stories” is best replaced by “stories,” and “shadowy cabal of—take your pick—mobsters, Communists, radical right-wingers, traitorous CIA operatives, or mutinous members of the military-industrial complex” is best replaced by “group of two or more persons that did not include Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Reitzes goes on to say, “Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission’s conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.” He did not do such an analysis himself. He refers to “independent studies” by Geoffrey Crawley and Dale Myers and to “meticulous reconstructions of the shooting by the British Broadcasting Company, the Discovery Channel, and Dr. John Lattimer, as well as highly accurate 3D computer models of the assassination by Failure Analysis Associates.” Were these analyses careful and sober? Reitzes says they were. We will see just how reliable his assessments are.

One of Reitzes’s unoriginal sins is the pie chart labeled “How many shots did witnesses hear at Dealey Plaza?” (A pie chart? Hasn’t he read Tufte?) This is just a rehash of “Number of Shots,” a section of the Warren Report (p. 110), which began, “The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two shots, while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.” Harold Weisberg derided this concept as “voting witnesses” just after it came out. It’s no better now. In any event, it’s all a diversion. The Warren Commission did not cite the testimony of witnesses who heard shots to justify its conclusion that the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the sniper’s nest, or its conclusion that the weight of evidence indicated that three shots were fired. It did not cite evidence on the impacts of the shots, either. Instead, it cited evidence that was inadequate to establish that any shots were fired from the sniper’s nest, let alone that all shots were fired from it (Warren Report, p. 61). This was economisting at its economistiest. It then argued that, since three shells were found in the depository, three shots were fired.

Reitzes writes, “The wound in the President’s throat was also referred to by some as an entrance wound, not the exit wound the autopsy pathologists determined it to be.” There was no such determination. The autopsy report (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 16, p. 981) describes the wound as “presumably of exit” and states that “it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy.” Commander James J. Humes, who performed the autopsy, testified that the wound was “no longer at all obvious as a missile wound.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 2, p. 362) Francis X. O’Neill and James W. Sibert, the FBI agents who attended the autopsy, reported that
Dr. HUMES stated that the pattern was clear that the one bullet had entered the President’s back and had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage and that a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull. (Warren Commission Document No. 7, p. 285)
If Humes determined that the throat wound was an exit wound, why did he say that the bullet that entered the President’s back came out the way it came in?

Committing the fallacy of equivocation, Reitzes refers to the single bullet theory several times, as if the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations shared a single theory. Each body had its own single bullet theory, shaped by the evidence it ignored or distorted. After the Warren Commission was forced to adopt its single bullet theory, it concluded that the shot that wounded both the President and the Governor was fired between frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film. It had to have been after 210, because the branches of an oak tree blocked the line of sight from the sniper’s nest to the presidential limousine between frames 166 and 210, except for 186; and it had to have been before 225, because the President emerges from behind a sign then and is clearly wounded (Warren Report, p. 98). Based on a reconstruction of the assassination, the FBI calculated the angles in the vertical plane of trajectories from the sniper’s perch to the wound on the President’s back with a high degree of precision. (They did not calculate the angles in the horizontal plane.) The Commission then assumed that the President and the Governor were positioned so that they could be wounded by a single shot (Warren Report, p. 106).

It didn’t take Harold Weisberg long to knock the scaffolding out from under the Commission’s single bullet theory. In Whitewash (p. 47), he noted that the Zapruder film becomes blurred at frame 190 and proposed that Zapruder’s hands became unsteady when he heard a shot. In Whitewash II (p. 201), he demonstrated that Phil Willis took his fifth slide at frame 202 of the film. Willis testified that the sound of the first shot prompted him to take this picture (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 7, p. 493). The Committee accepted Weisberg’s reasoning, without giving him credit. It concluded that a shot had been fired at frame 190, that it came from the sniper’s perch, and that it had wounded the President and the Governor (HSCA Report, p. 47). The assassin now had to fire through the branches of the oak tree and the poor Governor had to wait 46 frames before he could react to being wounded.

One wonders at times whether Reitzes reads what he writes. He quotes a passage from the Rockefeller Commission stating that the backward motion of the President’s upper body after the fatal shot could have been caused “by a violent straightening and stiffening of the entire body as a result of a seizure-like neuromuscular reaction to major damage inflicted to nerve centers in the brain. “ Entire body? Take a look at the Zapruder film. The President’s arms go where you’d expect gravity to take them.

Ever heard of James Tague? Reitzes gives no evidence that he has.

It doesn’t get any better when Reitzes moves on to the matter of the ownership of the alleged assassination weapon: the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139. He states
Documentary evidence assembled over the next two days established that the weapon had been purchased through the mail under an assumed name by Lee Harvey Oswald, one of the few Book Depository employees who had not gone outside to watch the motorcade.
He cites a section of the Warren Report (p. 118), which states that the rifle that Klein’s Sporting Goods shipped to Oswald’s post office box was the rifle found in the Depository, because the serial number in Klein’s record of the shipment was the same as that of the rifle found in the building. Neither the Report nor Reitzes mention Commission Exhibit No. 2562 (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 25, p. 808), an FBI report that J. Edgar Hoover forwarded to the Commission. This report quotes a weapons dealer as saying that Mannlicher-Carcanos do not have unique serial numbers. I cannot claim to have discovered this fact; Sylvia Meagher pointed it out in Accessories after the Fact—in 1967!

Reitzes mentions David S. Lifton, but not his body alteration theory, so he must accept it. Someone should set him straight.

This article is the latest element of a depressing pattern: investigators don’t investigate, reporters don’t report, and Skeptic denounces skeptics. Ignorance is strength.


Making a presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. The use of corrupt manipulations and rhetorical ploys to advance an argument suggests that the presenter cannot be trusted.

Edward Tufte
Robert Orourke 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 21st January 2014, 08:25 PM   #127
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
economisting (e kon’ o mist’ ing) 1. The act or process of converting limited evidence into grand claims by means of rhetorical ploys, especially punning, multiplicity of meanings, equivocation. 2. The belief or practice that empirical evidence can only confirm and never disconfirm a favored theory. 3. Conclusions that are theory-driven, not evidence-based. See also confirmation bias, painting with a broad brush, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, marketing, post-modern critical theory.

Edward Tufte


This article is not to be tossed aside lightly. It is to be hurled with great force. From the first sentence, it takes a propagandistic tone:
It has been called the mother of all conspiracy theories: the belief that the vibrant, widely admired 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was brutally cut down not by a lone gunman with inscrutable motives, but by a shadowy cabal of—take your pick—mobsters, Communists, radical right-wingers, traitorous CIA operatives, or mutinous members of the military-industrial complex.
In the eighties, Ronald Reagan said that the budget cuts he proposed would not hurt the “truly needy.” In the nineties, Phil Gramm said that we’d be hearing “horror stories” about the effects of welfare reform. Reagan did not say how the truly needy were different from the needy and Gramm did not say that the stories we would hear were false. “Truly needy” is best replaced by “needy,” “horror stories” is best replaced by “stories,” and “shadowy cabal of—take your pick—mobsters, Communists, radical right-wingers, traitorous CIA operatives, or mutinous members of the military-industrial complex” is best replaced by “group of two or more persons that did not include Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Reitzes goes on to say, “Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission’s conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.” He did not do such an analysis himself. He refers to “independent studies” by Geoffrey Crawley and Dale Myers and to “meticulous reconstructions of the shooting by the British Broadcasting Company, the Discovery Channel, and Dr. John Lattimer, as well as highly accurate 3D computer models of the assassination by Failure Analysis Associates.” Were these analyses careful and sober? Reitzes says they were. We will see just how reliable his assessments are.

One of Reitzes’s unoriginal sins is the pie chart labeled “How many shots did witnesses hear at Dealey Plaza?” (A pie chart? Hasn’t he read Tufte?) This is just a rehash of “Number of Shots,” a section of the Warren Report (p. 110), which began, “The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two shots, while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.” Harold Weisberg derided this concept as “voting witnesses” just after it came out. It’s no better now. In any event, it’s all a diversion. The Warren Commission did not cite the testimony of witnesses who heard shots to justify its conclusion that the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the sniper’s nest, or its conclusion that the weight of evidence indicated that three shots were fired. It did not cite evidence on the impacts of the shots, either. Instead, it cited evidence that was inadequate to establish that any shots were fired from the sniper’s nest, let alone that all shots were fired from it (Warren Report, p. 61). This was economisting at its economistiest. It then argued that, since three shells were found in the depository, three shots were fired.

Reitzes writes, “The wound in the President’s throat was also referred to by some as an entrance wound, not the exit wound the autopsy pathologists determined it to be.” There was no such determination. The autopsy report (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 16, p. 981) describes the wound as “presumably of exit” and states that “it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy.” Commander James J. Humes, who performed the autopsy, testified that the wound was “no longer at all obvious as a missile wound.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 2, p. 362) Francis X. O’Neill and James W. Sibert, the FBI agents who attended the autopsy, reported that
Dr. HUMES stated that the pattern was clear that the one bullet had entered the President’s back and had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage and that a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull. (Warren Commission Document No. 7, p. 285)
If Humes determined that the throat wound was an exit wound, why did he say that the bullet that entered the President’s back came out the way it came in?

Committing the fallacy of equivocation, Reitzes refers to the single bullet theory several times, as if the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations shared a single theory. Each body had its own single bullet theory, shaped by the evidence it ignored or distorted. After the Warren Commission was forced to adopt its single bullet theory, it concluded that the shot that wounded both the President and the Governor was fired between frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film. It had to have been after 210, because the branches of an oak tree blocked the line of sight from the sniper’s nest to the presidential limousine between frames 166 and 210, except for 186; and it had to have been before 225, because the President emerges from behind a sign then and is clearly wounded (Warren Report, p. 98). Based on a reconstruction of the assassination, the FBI calculated the angles in the vertical plane of trajectories from the sniper’s perch to the wound on the President’s back with a high degree of precision. (They did not calculate the angles in the horizontal plane.) The Commission then assumed that the President and the Governor were positioned so that they could be wounded by a single shot (Warren Report, p. 106).

It didn’t take Harold Weisberg long to knock the scaffolding out from under the Commission’s single bullet theory. In Whitewash (p. 47), he noted that the Zapruder film becomes blurred at frame 190 and proposed that Zapruder’s hands became unsteady when he heard a shot. In Whitewash II (p. 201), he demonstrated that Phil Willis took his fifth slide at frame 202 of the film. Willis testified that the sound of the first shot prompted him to take this picture (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 7, p. 493). The Committee accepted Weisberg’s reasoning, without giving him credit. It concluded that a shot had been fired at frame 190, that it came from the sniper’s perch, and that it had wounded the President and the Governor (HSCA Report, p. 47). The assassin now had to fire through the branches of the oak tree and the poor Governor had to wait 46 frames before he could react to being wounded.

One wonders at times whether Reitzes reads what he writes. He quotes a passage from the Rockefeller Commission stating that the backward motion of the President’s upper body after the fatal shot could have been caused “by a violent straightening and stiffening of the entire body as a result of a seizure-like neuromuscular reaction to major damage inflicted to nerve centers in the brain. “ Entire body? Take a look at the Zapruder film. The President’s arms go where you’d expect gravity to take them.

Ever heard of James Tague? Reitzes gives no evidence that he has.

It doesn’t get any better when Reitzes moves on to the matter of the ownership of the alleged assassination weapon: the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139. He states
Documentary evidence assembled over the next two days established that the weapon had been purchased through the mail under an assumed name by Lee Harvey Oswald, one of the few Book Depository employees who had not gone outside to watch the motorcade.
He cites a section of the Warren Report (p. 118), which states that the rifle that Klein’s Sporting Goods shipped to Oswald’s post office box was the rifle found in the Depository, because the serial number in Klein’s record of the shipment was the same as that of the rifle found in the building. Neither the Report nor Reitzes mention Commission Exhibit No. 2562 (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 25, p. 808), an FBI report that J. Edgar Hoover forwarded to the Commission. This report quotes a weapons dealer as saying that Mannlicher-Carcanos do not have unique serial numbers. I cannot claim to have discovered this fact; Sylvia Meagher pointed it out in Accessories after the Fact—in 1967!

Reitzes mentions David S. Lifton, but not his body alteration theory, so he must accept it. Someone should set him straight.

This article is the latest element of a depressing pattern: investigators don’t investigate, reporters don’t report, and Skeptic denounces skeptics. Ignorance is strength.


Making a presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual activity. The use of corrupt manipulations and rhetorical ploys to advance an argument suggests that the presenter cannot be trusted.

Edward Tufte
Sound and fury, signifying nothing. You have not advanced one iota of evidence confirming the participation of parties beyond LHO.

Rhetorical ploys, indeed.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 21st January 2014, 08:45 PM   #128
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,909
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
The Warren Commission did not cite the testimony of witnesses who heard shots to justify its conclusion that the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the sniper’s nest, or its conclusion that the weight of evidence indicated that three shots were fired.
What about the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman? They said they were in the TSBD and heard the shots.

Ranb
Ranb 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 21st January 2014, 08:53 PM   #129
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What about the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman? They said they were in the TSBD and heard the shots.

Ranb
Those were "outliers", they could be dismissed.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 21st January 2014, 08:58 PM   #130
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
This report quotes a weapons dealer as saying that Mannlicher-Carcanos do not have unique serial numbers.

Top right on pdf page 9:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jf...25_CE_2562.pdf

Quote:
... however in the 1930's Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern.

So your sentence should read "all Carcanos have serial numbers but some serial numbers may be duplicated coincidentally due to the various manufacturers not being assigned unique serial number groups or codes."

Alrighty then.
__________________
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000
probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess
matt.tansy 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 21st January 2014, 08:58 PM   #131
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,909
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Those were "outliers", they could be dismissed.
Or dismissed because they don't support the desired conclusion?

Ranb
Ranb 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 22nd January 2014, 05:02 AM   #132
vtbub
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Or dismissed because they don't support the desired conclusion?

Ranb
That about sums up nearly every CT out there, not just this one.
vtbub 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 22nd January 2014, 05:26 AM   #133
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Or dismissed because they don't support the desired conclusion?

Ranb
Exactly. Maybe we'll get a windy explanation in response, amounting to just that.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 22nd January 2014, 07:55 PM   #134
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Sound and fury, signifying nothing. You have not advanced one iota of evidence confirming the participation of parties beyond LHO.

Rhetorical ploys, indeed.
In other words, "I can't refute this post." A most gracious concession. Thank you very much.
Robert Orourke 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 22nd January 2014, 07:57 PM   #135
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
In other words, "I can't refute this post." A most gracious concession. Thank you very much.
Nothing to refute. No evidence was presented that anyone beyond LHO was involved.

ETA: And no concession either.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 22nd January 2014, 08:08 PM   #136
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,249
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
In other words, "I can't refute this post." A most gracious concession. Thank you very much.
In your heart, you know you're wrong.
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 22nd January 2014, 08:24 PM   #137
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
In other words, "I can't refute this post." A most gracious concession. Thank you very much.
Read up thread for my explanation as to why the "gunshot" reports aren't reliable.

Hint: it has to do with the mini sonic boom created by a supersonic projectile as it passes terrain features, including humans.

Might want to spend some time thinking about the physical aspects of cardiac massage and CPR too while you're at it.
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 22nd January 2014, 08:26 PM   #138
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
In your heart, you know you're wrong.
Baloney from a back-bencher
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 23rd January 2014, 07:55 AM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,712
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
In other words...
No, do not put "other words" in your critics' mouths. Deal with the words that are actually said.

Quote:
"I can't refute this post."
As previously said, nothing to refute. You make the classic JFK conspiracist's error of attempting to make an affirmative case by rebuttal only. "So-and-so is wrong, therefore I must be right." Correct that, and then there will be something to discuss.

Quote:
A most gracious concession. Thank you very much.
Declaring victory on your second post? Your critics have made no comment whatsoever that could be construed as a concession.
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 23rd January 2014, 07:45 PM   #140
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Or, I should have put "necessarily" between "not" and "have." The point remains. For the most famous syllogism in the history of logic to work, the statement "all men are mortal" must be true. For the Commission's reasoning to work, the statement "each Mannlicher-Carcano has a unique serial number" must be true. The FBI report is evidence that it isn't.
Robert Orourke 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 23rd January 2014, 07:52 PM   #141
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,712
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
For the Commission's reasoning to work, the statement "each Mannlicher-Carcano has a unique serial number" must be true.
No. It just converts the question into a probabilistic one rather than a deterministic one. You still bear the burden of proof. And trying to convert the overall question into, "Was the Warren Commission right?" doesn't suggest or support any conspiracy theory.

Still no farther along.
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 23rd January 2014, 08:03 PM   #142
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. It just converts the question into a probabilistic one rather than a deterministic one. You still bear the burden of proof. And trying to convert the overall question into, "Was the Warren Commission right?" doesn't suggest or support any conspiracy theory.

Still no farther along.
No, the Warren Commission bore the burden of proof. And you need to put "particular" between "any" and "conspiracy."
Robert Orourke 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 23rd January 2014, 08:19 PM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,712
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
No, the Warren Commission bore the burden of proof. And you need to put "particular" between "any" and "conspiracy."
Nope. The back-door method of trying to be erudite by simply chipping away at someone else's work has absolutely no investigative or historical value. What additional value do you purport to bring to the question of who killed Kennedy?

And no, I meant to say what I said. Do not pedantically edit my posts. Deal with what I actually say.

Do you have any comment on the nature of the question of serial numbers as a probabilistic problem?
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 25th January 2014, 04:58 PM   #144
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
What I find odd is that the CTs believe that someone devised a plan that could have been thwarted by a bad weather report. Kennedy is in the back of a hardtop and all that elaborate planning and work setting up Oswald as a patsy is for nothing.
And the Pearl Harbor attack could have been thwarted by clear weather along First Air Fleet's route, aerial reconnaissance from Hawaii, or torpedo nets, but Yamamoto ordered it anyway.

Robert O'Rourke


Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion or gain; these are reasons for murder.

Ambassador Shras in "Journey to Babel"
Robert Orourke 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 January 2014, 05:16 PM   #145
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,249
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
And the Pearl Harbor attack could have been thwarted by clear weather along First Air Fleet's route, aerial reconnaissance from Hawaii, or torpedo nets, but Yamamoto ordered it anyway.

Robert O'Rourke


Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion or gain; these are reasons for murder.

Ambassador Shras in "Journey to Babel"
Why do you believe it to be impossible for Oswald to have used his assassination rifle to shoot Kennedy?

"When the student is ready, the teacher appears."
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 25th January 2014, 05:41 PM   #146
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
And the Pearl Harbor attack could have been thwarted by clear weather along First Air Fleet's route, aerial reconnaissance from Hawaii, or torpedo nets, but Yamamoto ordered it anyway.

Robert O'Rourke


Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion or gain; these are reasons for murder.

Ambassador Shras in "Journey to Babel"
Perhaps you should devote yourself to matters of fact; you seem to be as lamentably lacking on them with regard to the Pearl Harbor attack as you are with the JFK assassination.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 26th January 2014, 04:36 AM   #147
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
In your heart, you know you're wrong.
In my brain, I know you're desperate!
Robert Orourke 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 26th January 2014, 06:58 AM   #148
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
And the Pearl Harbor attack could have been thwarted by clear weather along First Air Fleet's route, aerial reconnaissance from Hawaii, or torpedo nets, but Yamamoto ordered it anyway.

Robert O'Rourke


Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion or gain; these are reasons for murder.

Ambassador Shras in "Journey to Babel"
We've sailed over the edge of the rational sea and are now in the land of woo.
tsig 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 26th January 2014, 06:59 AM   #149
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,794
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
No, the Warren Commission bore the burden of proof. And you need to put "particular" between "any" and "conspiracy."
"There was a conspiracy" is a positive assertion that, all by itself, bears a burden of proof; no particular conspiracy needs to be identified to make it a conclusion that is equivalent to the Warren Commission's in needing evidence for it. Negative proof (that the WC got this, that, and the other wrong) is not meeting that need for positive evidence, any more than a creationist's assertion that the Theory of Evolution is wrong for (usually misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented) reasons a, b, and c is evidence for "goddidit!"; and your insistence that you have no burden of proof for a non-specified conclusion makes it, exactly like creationism's, a useless claim of faith only in a context that needs more.

All you're doing here is using your doubt about the evidence for one conclusion as an escape-hatch to avoid presenting evidence for yours. You have a conclusion; back it up by doing more than just pretending that not particularizing your conspiracy means you don't need any evidence for it, when you have certainly specified it enough, just by asserting "conspiracy," to need some.

As nonsensical as someone like David Lifton is, he at least did more than just handwave.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 26th January 2014, 07:05 AM   #150
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Someone's bored
ComfySlippers 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 26th January 2014, 07:09 AM   #151
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,794
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
We've sailed over the edge of the rational sea and are now in the land of woo.
And woo has a momentum all its own; when you "forget logic," you can believe anything you choose because you've abandoned the constraints that keep you from believing everything put in front of you.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 26th January 2014 at 07:42 AM. Reason: clarify
turingtest 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 26th January 2014, 08:21 AM   #152
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,249
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
In my brain, I know you're desperate!
So, why did you choose to provide no evidence for your religious beliefs? Is it your lack of logic?
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 26th January 2014, 10:14 AM   #153
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,712
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
"There was a conspiracy" is a positive assertion that, all by itself, bears a burden of proof...
Yes, turingtest understands the point.
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 26th January 2014, 10:46 AM   #154
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
And the Pearl Harbor attack could have been thwarted by clear weather along First Air Fleet's route, aerial reconnaissance from Hawaii, or torpedo nets, but Yamamoto ordered it anyway.

Robert O'Rourke


Perhaps you should forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion or gain; these are reasons for murder.

Ambassador Shras in "Journey to Babel"
Are you saying LHO was not passionate? He was motivated by logic?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 26th January 2014, 03:48 PM   #155
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What about the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman? They said they were in the TSBD and heard the shots.

Ranb
Williams testified (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 3, p. 175) that he at first thought the first shot was a rifle salute or motorcycle backfire. Neither of these events happens very often on the fifth floors of buildings, so it's not surprising that the Warren Report did not quote this part of his testimony. It quoted (p. 70) Williams's, Norman's, and James Jarman's testimony that they heard what sounded like the operation of a rifle bolt and cartridge cases hitting the floor above them.
Robert Orourke 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 26th January 2014, 03:50 PM   #156
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Perhaps you should devote yourself to matters of fact; you seem to be as lamentably lacking on them with regard to the Pearl Harbor attack as you are with the JFK assassination.
Yes, I quite forgot that the Japanese had invisible ships that no one could spot from airplanes or other ships. A thousand pardons.
Robert Orourke 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 26th January 2014, 03:53 PM   #157
Robert Orourke
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I've posted it at JREF before, but it bears repeating.

Multiple shooters on a single target don't multiply the chances of success, they multiply the chance for failure, and if we're talking about different flavors of conspiracy, it multiplies the chances of disclosure.
B:

Were you the one who came up with the idea, "An Army of One"? Why was it dropped?

Robert
Robert Orourke 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 26th January 2014, 04:01 PM   #158
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,249
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
Yes, I quite forgot that the Japanese had invisible ships that no one could spot from airplanes or other ships. A thousand pardons.
Is there any conspiracy theory that you don't swallow whole?
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 26th January 2014, 04:27 PM   #159
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
Yes, I quite forgot that the Japanese had invisible ships that no one could spot from airplanes or other ships. A thousand pardons.
Yes, when you toss an off topic red herring, make sure you chase it yourself for maximum return on the distraction.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 26th January 2014, 04:47 PM   #160
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Robert Orourke View Post
Yes, I quite forgot that the Japanese had invisible ships that no one could spot from airplanes or other ships. A thousand pardons.
And nothing here changes my belief that you would be well advised to go and learn some facts rather than indulging your 'passion'.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 08:13 AM.
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.