Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[proudfootz]

Eyewitness testimony is almost always in conflict with facts determinable by other means. For that reason we don't consider it exceptionally reliable in general, but we don't dismiss it outright. If you're willing to argue that Markham's testimony is less reliable than other eyewitnesses, then go ahead and make your case. But arguing that it seems to conflict with facts without providing a quantitative or qualitative discussion of that conflict doesn't separate her testimony from the general case.

Given that WC counsel Joseph Ball has characterized her as a screwball and admitted her testimony is full of errors, I'm not claiming that she is especially worse than the other 'witnesses' chosen by the Warren Commission.

Since the case never went to trial, we don't know how these people would fare under cross examination, nor have we seen any defense witnesses at all.

 

[proudfootz]

I didn't say it was a web site. I typically consult facsimile PDFs of the original printed Warren Commission materials. It's the same sources conspiracy authors use, so I don't know why your panties are in such a wad.

I'm not wearing panties.

You're the one who seems to be upset.

I just note a distinct difference between your approach and mine. You selectively quote Markham's testimony without attribution, leaving off the part where she confirms that she identified Oswald. Then when pressed, you send me to a web site where someone has typed in a lengthier excerpt from Markham's testimony and offered commentary on it.

So what? Everyone here is likely familiar enough with the materials that I shouldn't have to reproduce everything ever written on the subject every time I post.

You offer your commentary, without attribution. Why are your panties in a wad about others making commentary?

I simply went and read her testimony, and decided for myself what it indicated and how much of it was relevant to this particular question.

Goodie for you. I'm not afraid of availing myself to the expertise of others.

You seem to be afraid of context here.

A couple of posts in and already the internet psychologist is trying to explain me to me.

And no wonder. You originally tried the rail-split approach. Then when you got caught doing it, you had to ramp up the spin to make sure we got the impression that she was "badgered" into giving the answer you really didn't want your readers knowing that she gave. Your approach to Markham is all spin and damage control. This is why it generally fails to convince.

The only 'damage control' evident is that the prosecution had to ask the witness many more times than would appear necessary to elicit the answer they wanted.

But do keep up the spin - it's very enlightening as to your 'methodology' of trying to frame the debate and poison the well.

 

[proudfootz]

If Mark Lane had invented it, why did he misquote his own fabrication?

The question is why would Markham deny talking to Lane?

The question regarding Lane and Markham is whether Lane represented correctly what he claims Markham told him. According to Lane, Markham described Oswald as short and stocky with bushy hair. But according to the transcript of the purported phone call between them, Markham explicitly denies that. In fact, the transcript shows that Lane primed her with that description and that Markham denied it.

The only way to resolve the question of what Markham told reporters (which appears to be what Lane was asking about) would be to find the source that Lane was referring to. It's not very helpful to have a tape recording of a later conversation where she says he 'wasn't so stocky'.

The spin that Lane was 'priming' Markham is especially ironic when aspersions are cast on pointing out prosecution lawyers doggedly questioning Markham when she denies identifying Oswald until they 'prime' her with 'it was Number 2 you identified?'

If your claim is that the conversation between Lane and Markham never took place, can you explain these inconsistencies?

You simply don't follow what I was getting at.

 

[proudfootz]

Looking at the anti-Lane article, one is stunned to see this rogue's gallery cited:

"...a number of respected authors (including Bayard Stockton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gus Russo, Evan Thomas, Tim Weiner, Jefferson Morley, and Peter Grose) who have researched the allegation... "

That Mel Ayton bases his characterization of Mark Lane on these worthies should clue us in he is not a credible source.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Looking at the anti-Lane article, one is stunned to see this rogue's gallery cited:

"...a number of respected authors (including Bayard Stockton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gus Russo, Evan Thomas, Tim Weiner, Jefferson Morley, and Peter Grose) who have researched the allegation... "

That Mel Ayton bases his characterization of Mark Lane on these worthies should clue us in he is not a credible source.

So, alright, let's hear it. What is not credible about these particular authors? Or, if you like, pick just one and tell us specifically what it is that makes him not credible. That you don't like what he says is not grounds for considering him not credible, by the way.

 

[proudfootz]

So, alright, let's hear it. What is not credible about these particular authors? Or, if you like, pick just one and tell us specifically what it is that makes him not credible. That you don't like what he says is not grounds for considering him not credible, by the way.

I have no reason to find any of them particularly credible. Ayton seems to uncritically pass on characterizations of Lane from other authors in a game of telephone.

But I'll go back to Bugliosi's book and see if we can't label him a 'liar' on as good evidence Lane is being called a liar on this thread.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I have no reason to find any of them particularly credible. Ayton seems to uncritically pass on characterizations of Lane from other authors in a game of telephone.

But I'll go back to Bugliosi's book and see if we can't label him a 'liar' on as good evidence Lane is being called a liar on this thread.

So in other words, you have no specific criticisms, just "I don't like these guys". Thanks for playing.

 

[proudfootz]

So in other words, you have no specific criticisms, just "I don't like these guys". Thanks for playing.

Hey, if I say anything any number of Warren Commission apologists will jump all over me for 'cites'. So I need to prepare the cites - I'm not paid to do this work.

So you instead pounce on my taking time and effort preparing to provide a thoughtful response to a request.

Nice game you're playing - I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So in summary: The burden of proof can't be met. Statements CAN be shown to be untruthful from Lane. No evidence can be brought to actually support any new proposition or to counter the established narrative?

So... Still no conspiracy. Well done.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Hey, if I say anything any number of Warren Commission apologists will jump all over me for 'cites'. So I need to prepare the cites - I'm not paid to do this work.

So you instead pounce on my taking time and effort preparing to provide a thoughtful response to a request.

Nice game you're playing - I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Except that isn't what you said. Take all the time you need, by all means. But your original statement said, and I quote, "I have no reason to find any of them particularly credible." That's a nice generic blanket evidence-free statement. If you're wanting to avoid being jumped on, then you could have simply said, "I will need to go back and prepare some citations and will get back to you later." See how easy that was?

 

[proudfootz]

Except that isn't what you said.

Yes it is.

I have no reason to find any of them particularly credible. Ayton seems to uncritically pass on characterizations of Lane from other authors in a game of telephone.

But I'll go back to Bugliosi's book and see if we can't label him a 'liar' on as good evidence Lane is being called a liar on this thread.

You must have missed this when I posted it in your haste to attack.

Take all the time you need, by all means. But your original statement said, and I quote, "I have no reason to find any of them particularly credible." That's a nice generic blanket evidence-free statement.

As you can see from my full post reproduced above, you took thgat quote out of context. Some might characterize that as dishonest...

If you're wanting to avoid being jumped on, then you could have simply said, "I will need to go back and prepare some citations and will get back to you later." See how easy that was?

Now that I've shown that I did say I intended to go back to the original sources, you can post your apology now.

Or you can continue to play the part of a troll.

But if blogger Ayton need note cite original documents, but simply repeats the opinions of others and that is considered conclusive 'proof' that lane lied about something or other, I'm not sure why I should be held to a higher standard.

But I'm willing to play your game, conscious that you are playing a game.

 

[proudfootz]

So in summary: The burden of proof can't be met. Statements CAN be shown to be untruthful from Lane. No evidence can be brought to actually support any new proposition or to counter the established narrative?

So... Still no conspiracy. Well done.

No evidence of lies from Lane have been produced, except the opinion of several authors quoted in a blog post by Ayton.

 

[JayUtah]

No evidence of lies from Lane have been produced, except the opinion of several authors quoted in a blog post by Ayton.

No evidence that you'll acknowledge, anyway.

 

[JayUtah]

The question is why would Markham deny talking to Lane?

No, that isn't the question.

You simply don't follow what I was getting at.

No, you simply didn't understand the rebuttal. Either the conversation between Lane and Markham took place as advertised, in which case Lane lied about what Markham told him. Or it didn't take place as claimed, in which case Lane fabricated it, then misrepresented it.

 

[JayUtah]

You're the one who seems to be upset.

Nope, just amused.

So what? Everyone here is likely familiar enough with the materials that I shouldn't have to reproduce everything ever written on the subject every time I post.

But you did reproduce it anyway, voluntarily and selectively, and then had to backpedal. First you posted a short snippet and emphasized the line you thought would convey that Markham denied her identification. Then when it became apparent your opponents knew more of the testimony than you perhaps credited them for, you had to backpedal and explain that what she said for the following two pages wasn't her "real" testimony, but was only the result of what you claimed was badgering "by lawyers." That was Plan B after Plan A (the selective quotation) failed.

A couple of posts in and already the internet psychologist is trying to explain me to me.

No more so than you telling me how upset I am. I simply noted that it took three tries before you would acknowledge that the excerpt you quoted from Markham's Warren Commission testimony wasn't the whole truth. I'm not pretending to practice psychology; I'm just observing you as you backpedal.

The only 'damage control' evident is that the prosecution had to ask the witness many more times than would appear necessary to elicit the answer they wanted.

"Would appear necessary" is your layman's interpretation, and it begs the question. As I said, it appears you're the one doing damage control when it became apparent you couldn't get by with selectively quoting Markham.

 

[I Ratant]

I found it precious that a presumed seeker of "truth, justice and the American way" would disparage possession of the source material for the very ineffective Conspiracy Twinkie attacks on that source material, which has survived all such attempts to be disproven over the decades.

 

[manifesto]

I found it precious that a presumed seeker of "truth, justice and the American way" would disparage possession of the source material for the very ineffective Conspiracy Twinkie attacks on that source material, which has survived all such attempts to be disproven over the decades.

What lies from Mark Lane are you referring to in this quote?

Mark Lane just plain lies about the testimony to the WCR.

Be precise.

 

[I Ratant]

What lies from Mark Lane are you referring to in this quote?

Be precise.

.
"Case Closed" by Gerry Posner.
Get that, then you'll have two (2) book on the assassination!

 

[manifesto]

.
"Case Closed" by Gerry Posner.
Get that, then you'll have two (2) book on the assassination!

Do I find Mark Lane's lies in Gerry Posner's "Case Closed"? What page?

 

[JayUtah]

Do I find Mark Lane's lies in Gerry Posner's "Case Closed"? What page?

Have you read the book? Yes or no.