Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[I Ratant]

Conspiracy theorist is purely descriptive and often self-applied. Lone Nutter is a puerile epithet. I see a huge difference.

.
I've used "LHOLN" in the past.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, still your burden of proof. Stamp you foot ever so mightily, still your burden of proof. Like it or not.

It does seem odd to argue that scepticism itself is wrong for using a methodological process rather than arguing with in the process.

Not all beliefs are equal. Least of all to the person you want to convince of something the accepted evidence simply does not point to. At the moment I am reminded more of a creationist demanding all others accept god as equally likely as the big bang so the conversation can be 'fair' with out defining god, giving evidence of god, or anything else that is useful to the actual conversation at hand.

There is of course a reason for this. It is assumed that if the Null is not accepted it is a race between competing interpretations. It is not. For exactly the same reasons that saying "the paraffin test means Oswald did not fire a rifle" is not convincing.

Oswald is the only person we can say for sure held the rifle, the shots came from his workplace, and he carried the rifle into the building. With out proving anybody else DID fire the rifle, then there is no reason to assume Oswald did not. It is entirely possible for the parrafin test to fail to pick up GSR from somebody who did fire a gun. They are not perfect tests. A failure of one test does not overturn a body of evidence. It is one factor within a body of evidence, the weight of which still leans towards Oswald.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh yes, all that name-calling sure put me in my place. But pages hence, still no closer to a new suspect in Kennedy's murder.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh yes, all that name-calling sure put me in my place. But pages hence, still no closer to a new suspect in Kennedy's murder.

Or an alternate and comprehensive body of evidence that LHO was innocent.

I dream of the day a CT approaches the conversation with a post that reads: "This are the four key pieces of evidence I dispute and my counter evidence" in a coherent way. Not the shambling rambling collection of unrelated ideas that Robert Prey spat at us, or piecemeal puzzles. But a nice coherent theory that can actually be scrutinised.

Unfortunately the majority look for unrelated gaps in the evidence and think that if there are enough flaws there must be a conspiracy. Even if those gaps are unrelated and none of the points connect in a meaningful way.

 

[Mudcat]

So tell us why you shouldn't have any burden of proof.

I think they're still trying to frame the discussion as if it's a court of law. Sad, ain't it?

 

[Mudcat]

As I have already put forward an inconvenient fact for this story of yours, which is that scientific evidence indicates that Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, and that Oswald's accuser have tried to bury these findings.

The paraffin test nonsense, again? That test was notoriously unreliable, a point that was raised by the FBI before the Kennedy assassination and gave false positives and false negatives the majority of the time. That's why it's no longer in use.

I've pointed this out to you, as did someone else (I think it was I Rant). Just because those posts got shifted into the AAH doesn't mean you get to pretend they never happened.

 

[I Ratant]

The Depository is like a library, right?
OMG!
The obvious killer is Colonel Mustard!
Has his whereabouts been verified on that day?

 

[Mudcat]

I know that last post was made in jest, but could a revolver (to stay in spirit of the game Clue) be used to kill Kennedy from the book depository?

 

[I Ratant]

This one? CE-143
No.
Too short a sight radius to be able to be aimed with any precision at the target at the distances involved.
And the .38 Special bullet wouldn't have the energy to blast out the contents of the skull as seen in Z-313.

 

[Mudcat]

This one?

Not that revolver/pistol specifically, no. Could any revolver/pistol of the time have been able to make those shots?

 

[I Ratant]

Oh yes!
I've fired pistols at ranges up to 200 meters, 10 shots at each distance;50, 100, 150 and 200 meters, and hit all 40 targets several times!
Using specialized pistols. Thompson Contender single shots with 10" and 14" barrels in 7mm TCU, .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, and three revolvers.. Colt Trooper 8" barrel, .357 Magnum... barely adequate.. Ruger Blackhawk, 10" barrel, .44 Magnum, and Dan Wesson ... interchangeable barrels from 4" (fired just once! Too much commotion too close to my favorite face), 10", and maybe one longer.. it's been 25 years...
.
The supine position (Creedmore Position) is the most accurate, but not useful on a moving target. The cylinder blow-by of a revolver will send burnt powder debris into the leg of the pants.. so a Kevlar shield is used.
FWIW, a group of professional shooters fired at the JFK ranges with the Mannlicher-Carcano, moving target and some were able to get off the three shots in 3 seconds!
It's also worth noting that Marina said that LHOLN mounted a rifle to his left shoulder when shooting. This would have made using the scope more of a problem than the iron sights.

 

[Axxman300]

Something that bothered me when I was a JFK CT loon was why not do a better job of framing LHO? Why not give him a friend that he could tell all of his secrets to? Why not have a second guy on the 6th floor who just happened to see LHO shoot and even restrain him?

Why not a better rifle?

Why not load Dealey Plaza with more film and still cameras and pros who knew how to use them?

Why no note, letter, or diary left conveniently behind?

As for the testing for gunshot residue, WHY NOT FAKE THE RESULTS TO ENSURE ZERO DOUBT?

This is colossal breakdown in fundamental logic and reasoning on the part of the JFK CT-ists.

 

[turingtest]

Yes. I can. And I will consider to do so until an acceptable burden of evidence has been met.


Last time you posted these I asked pertinent questions. Allow me to ask them again as they hold the key to convincing me on this issue (and I am the lowest bar to meet in this discussion):

How reliable is the test?
Is there a difference in the test between affirming a negative (ie being able to state that a rifle was NOT fired) and failing to affirm a positive (being unable to state a rifle was fired)?
Which of the above does a parrafin test produce?

In short: Does your link describe a lack of evidence for Oswald firing a rifle or does it make it impossible for Oswald to have fired a rifle?

I'd add another question. Since, according to the CTists,* the paraffin test is completely reliable when its negative finding (for Oswald's cheek) absolves him of firing a rifle, is it equally to be relied on when its positive finding (for his hands) indicates that he fired a gun of some sort? Are the folks who are trying so hard to discredit Markham as eyewitness evidence for Oswald shooting Tippit willing to accept their own "scientific evidence" that he at least fired a gun? Or are they going to dismiss as meaningless a positive result when it works against their thesis even when it's reached on the same basis as the negative result that works for them?

*But not to anybody here, where it's been repeatedly said that the paraffin test is (and was even then known to be) completely unreliable; and not to the Warren Commission (link):

During Oswald’s interrogation at Dallas police headquarters on November 22, 1963, a paraffin test was performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. His hands reacted positively to the test, but his right cheek showed no reaction. Based on expert testimony and FBI tests using Oswald’s rifle, the Warren Commission concluded that the paraffin test “is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. (WC Report, 560-61) As a result, the commission rejected claims of Dallas officials, who claimed that the test showed he fired the rifle, and Mark Lane, who maintained that the test proved he did not fire the rifle.

The WC said the test neither incriminated nor exculpated Oswald; CTists, by their touting of it as "scientific evidence" that absolves Oswald in part, seem to have put themselves in a position where they have to accept that it also damns him in another part.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'd add another question. Since, according to the CTists,* the paraffin test is completely reliable when its negative finding (for Oswald's cheek) absolves him of firing a rifle, is it equally to be relied on when its positive finding (for his hands) indicates that he fired a gun of some sort? Are the folks who are trying so hard to discredit Markham as eyewitness evidence for Oswald shooting Tippit willing to accept their own "scientific evidence" that he at least fired a gun? Or are they going to dismiss as meaningless a positive result when it works against their thesis even when it's reached on the same basis as the negative result that works for them?

*But not to anybody here, where it's been repeatedly said that the paraffin test is (and was even then known to be) completely unreliable; and not to the Warren Commission (link):

The WC said the test neither incriminated nor exculpated Oswald; CTists, by their touting of it as "scientific evidence" that absolves Oswald in part, seem to have put themselves in a position where they have to accept that it also damns him in another part.

I was hoping that if I took it one step at a time and established how reliable the results are and what meaningful data could be taken from them to then expand to the other tests, thus preventing any claims that the baby steps could be seen as a Gish Gallop.

 

[turingtest]

I was hoping that if I took it one step at a time and established how reliable the results are and what meaningful data could be taken from them to then expand to the other tests, thus preventing any claims that the baby steps could be seen as a Gish Gallop.

That's certainly a valid approach, and worth a try; I'm just not sure how useful baby steps are going to be with folks whose preferred approach to a problem is to leap in giant bounds from premise to conclusion without regard for the whole of the evidence in between (even when that evidence is their own).

 

[Tomtomkent]

That's certainly a valid approach, and worth a try; I'm just not sure useful baby steps are going to be with folks whose preferred approach to a problem is to leap in giant bounds from premise to conclusion without regard for the whole of the evidence in between (even when that evidence is their own).

The CT advocates in the discussion mentioned the Gish Gallop, so they can offer their response at a different rate. My main concern seems to be that once again they will lose track of who raised an argument and who simply commented on it...

 

[HSienzant]

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

Be precise.

I was. You ignored it.

How many hours a day should one devote to whacking moles?

Jeez - I just got done putting JayUtah's bloviating about 'CTs' to shame, and eviscerating Mudcat's irredeemably wrong assertions about prosecutors and their roles in the US court system.

This is a target rich environment for a skeptic.

And you never even tried to respond to my posts about Mark Lane's lies.
You just tip-toed around it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10211813&postcount=389
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10211827&postcount=390
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489

Anytime you care to try to salvage what Mark Lane said, let me know.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Anytime you care to try to salvage what Mark Lane said, let me know.

Regarding Markham he didn't even try. He just restated his previous argument, which wasn't an argument at all but rather simply a duplication of Mark Lane's own shenanigans. You don't defend someone by repeating his error.

Proudfootz simply cherry-picks statements from excerpts of the Lane-Markham transcript and says that they match Lane's claims "in every detail." Well, that's because they were cherry-picked to do so! Proudfootz even goes so far as to dress up his cherry-picking as quoting the "relevant" part of the transcript. Apparently his criteria for relevance is whether it supports Lane.

But if the claim is that Lane misrepresented his phone call with Markham by ignoring the Markham statements that contradicted his belief, then continuing to ignore them is not a defense. The parts he left out or didn't consider are not irrelevant to whether he correctly represented her expressed belief.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Regarding Markham he didn't even try. He just restated his previous argument, which wasn't an argument at all but rather simply a duplication of Mark Lane's own shenanigans. You don't defend someone by repeating his error.

Proudfootz simply cherry-picks statements from excerpts of the Lane-Markham transcript and says that they match Lane's claims "in every detail." Well, that's because they were cherry-picked to do so! Proudfootz even goes so far as to dress up his cherry-picking as quoting the "relevant" part of the transcript. Apparently his criteria for relevance is whether it supports Lane.

But if the claim is that Lane misrepresented his phone call with Markham by ignoring the Markham statements that contradicted his belief, then continuing to ignore them is not a defense. The parts he left out or didn't consider are not irrelevant to whether he correctly represented her expressed belief.

There is a habit of wanting the cake and eating it in conspiracy Law. Markham "would be destroyed under cross examination" but is also accurate in the details that don't fit Oswald. Maria Oswald is perfectly honest and accurate when she doesn't remember the front yard photos, but is unreliable and sketchy when detailing how and when they were taken. Doctors are paragons of truth and virtue, but only when disagreeing with the Warren Commission later. Their testimony was of course lies, or whitewashed, or them saying what the FBI wanted.

It amazes me reading conspiracy books, forums and discussions how people can be absolutely reliable, in some cases while describing how terrible a liar they were... Old RP was very prone to this and could never explain how and why he could discern which conflicting claims from the same mouth were truthful other than it being obvious they agreed with his conjecture.

 

[CORed]

I know that last post was made in jest, but could a revolver (to stay in spirit of the game Clue) be used to kill Kennedy from the book depository?

Maybe, but that really would be a miracle shot.