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
 

Notices


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.
Reply
Old Today, 10:55 AM   #561
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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; Today at 11:04 AM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:05 AM   #562
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
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 Today, 11:20 AM   #563
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
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 Today, 11:24 AM   #564
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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; Today at 11:25 AM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:27 AM   #565
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
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 Today, 11:29 AM   #566
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,384
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; Today at 11:37 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:35 AM   #567
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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; Today at 11:43 AM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:36 AM   #568
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
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 Today, 11:45 AM   #569
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,384
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:57 AM   #570
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 790
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; Today 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 Today, 12:26 PM   #571
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,192
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
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:26 PM   #572
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,771
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 Today, 12:49 PM   #573
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,478
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 Today, 12:57 PM   #574
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,192
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Beyond The Fence Line also contains information about Lee Bowers.

Post that information then... Cite. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

Oh, wait! Of course. Silly me. You won't be able to do that unless you can steal the content from someone who has paid for it.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:03 PM   #575
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,478
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 Today, 01:19 PM   #576
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,771
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Post that information then... Cite. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

Oh, wait! Of course. Silly me. You won't be able to do that unless you can steal the content from someone who has paid for it.
There is no digital version of that book, but the fact that piracy is evidence against capitalism shouldn't mean I should be concerned with your feelings. It's not stealing if there's infinity. A system that relies on human kindness will never work, so why bother. In Socialism, artists are paid equally. From films like Earth (1930) to Solaris (1972), art thrived under socialism without any pressure to pander to idiots like today.
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 Today, 01:50 PM   #577
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,192
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no digital version of that book, but the fact that piracy is evidence against capitalism shouldn't mean I should be concerned with your feelings. It's not stealing if there's infinity. A system that relies on human kindness will never work, so why bother. In Socialism, artists are paid equally. From films like Earth (1930) to Solaris (1972), art thrived under socialism without any pressure to pander to idiots like today.
You might want to ask Oscar Rabin, Vladimir Yankilevsky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Oleg Tselkov and Dmitry Krasnopevtsev about how "art thrived under socialism". I am 100% sure they will all disagree. The only art that thrived under Socialism was that created by artists who towed the party line. Those who did not were likely to end up in a Siberian Gulag.

I understand that you're a communist and you feel duty bound to support your communist buddy Oswald... we get that, however, in this case...

By the book
Copy the relevant passages
Cite them here
Explain them
Argue for their veracity

or

Shut up about it. You don't get to play the "dog ate my homework" card on this forum.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:06 PM   #578
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,771
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You might want to ask Oscar Rabin, Vladimir Yankilevsky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Oleg Tselkov and Dmitry Krasnopevtsev about how "art thrived under socialism". I am 100% sure they will all disagree. The only art that thrived under Socialism was that created by artists who towed the party line. Those who did not were likely to end up in a Siberian Gulag.

I understand that you're a communist and you feel duty bound to support your communist buddy Oswald... we get that, however, in this case...

By the book
Copy the relevant passages
Cite them here
Explain them
Argue for their veracity

or

Shut up about it. You don't get to play the "dog ate my homework" card on this forum.
Where are these other countries that don't censor random stuff?
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 Today, 02:09 PM   #579
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:17 PM   #580
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's not stealing if there's infinity.
You've made this claim several times. It's a familiar one to all lawyers and legal scholars of intellectual property. What you're claiming is that because a digital or analog copy of a book is a public good (i.e., by its nature it is physically non-excludable and non-rivalrous), there is a universal privilege to copy and share it. But that's precisely why copyright laws are enacted and enforced--to fence off such public goods by law, so that authors will have an incentive to create and will receive some reward for their efforts. Simply to harp on the public-goods nature of a digital text is to ignore the whole author's side of the equation. The law contains user-friendly exceptions, such as fair use/fair dealing, that permit judicious, market-protecting quotation. You don't have to reproduce the whole text to make your point within the bounds of the law.

Last edited by OKBob; Today at 04:07 PM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:30 PM   #581
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,384
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; Today at 03:44 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:46 PM   #582
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,384
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:11 PM   #583
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,151
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 Today, 04:14 PM   #584
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no digital version of that book, but the fact that piracy is evidence against capitalism shouldn't mean I should be concerned with your feelings. It's not stealing if there's infinity. A system that relies on human kindness will never work, so why bother. In Socialism, artists are paid equally. From films like Earth (1930) to Solaris (1972), art thrived under socialism without any pressure to pander to idiots like today.
The word "Idiot" applies only to someone who steals books claiming they're too expensive when all that one needs is a LIBRARY CARD.

Books for free is the concept beyond paying for the card, plus you have access to the library internet terminals where many have free access to scholarly publication that you can access for free, and save to a thumb-drive. Many libraries also have free access to Nexis, a searchable news database giving one access to most American newspapers, and their archives, and the same with the major wire-services.

I have news for you: You are not a victim, you are a predator.
__________________
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 Today, 04:24 PM   #585
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,192
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Where are these other countries that don't censor random stuff?
Your claim... your burden.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:38 PM   #586
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,964
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 Today, 04:55 PM   #587
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You might want to ask Oscar Rabin, Vladimir Yankilevsky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Oleg Tselkov and Dmitry Krasnopevtsev about how "art thrived under socialism". I am 100% sure they will all disagree. The only art that thrived under Socialism was that created by artists who towed the party line. Those who did not were likely to end up in a Siberian Gulag.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Where are these other countries that don't censor random stuff?
I do believe you just changed the subject from imprisonment to censorship.

Another logical fallacy by you.

Logical Fallacies: Like Air to CTs. Can't live without it.

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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:33 PM   #588
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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; Today at 05:37 PM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:37 PM   #589
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,478
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 Today, 05:52 PM   #590
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 279
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 07:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.