Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[uk_dave]

A better alternative to the JFK shooting?

How about the fact that JFK had Cuisses de Grenouille à la Provençale for dinner several nights before and said meal had dinosaur DNA in it and that caused his head to explode?

The above is marginally better than Manifesto's non theory.

OMFG YOU COULD BE RIGHT! And Jurassic Park is the way they are trying to admit to it in a subtle, almost completely intangible way.

Oh the humanity.

 

[manifesto]

It's less cluttered and easier to read for me.

Fair enough.

Why do you focus on style and flourish rather than on the content of posts ?

I'm trying.

 

[manifesto]

Where you see malfeasance, I see actions explainable by human frailty. I wish I could tell you that I know one case where every single thing was done 100% according to sop and nobody slipped up, but I don't know of any case that would qualify - anytime you have 20 or more folks walking around a crime scene you have 20 X infinity the opportunity to make mistakes or mess up physical evidence. Real life is not CSI whatever.

The LE world was much simpler in '63, and what you second guess at a distance isn't necessarily valid for that time and place.

1. Does the evidence hold up for closer scrutiny?

2. If not, why?

What I'm trying to do here is showing that two cases of critical importance for the veracity of the official explanation to the JFK assassination, does not hold up.

When this is done (1) the next question is why this is the case (2).

My position on the exemplars is that I'd better get my glasses checked because evidently you and Jay can make out markings on CE 399 and I can't see marking one.

Well, so far we only have John Hunts word on this I guess. He got special permission to investigate CE-399 at NARA and is certain that there are three engraved initials from the three FBI personel in charge att the lab in D.C., but not from SA Elmer Todd.

I strongly doubt that he would lie about this extremely important finding, of the same reason that I strongly doubt that Krusch is lying. It is too easy to check.

All I can tell you is this: I never once marked a projectile - never - -0- - no questions asked, it wasn't allowed by departmental and DOJ policy, but I came along long after 1963. What the FBI did wrt CE 399 et al is unknown to me, but my above observation stands - there were too many cooks for things not to have gone fugazi.

And I'm suggesting that since the DPD used a diamond pen for custody marking (Lt Day's WC testimony), and since the FBI used a diamond pen for specimen marking (i.e. "Q-6" et.c. on the empty shells), that the probable method used by Elmer Todd for marking custody on CE-399 was also with a diamond pen.

And I agree, there was much confusion, extreme lack of competence and good routines, too many different agencies in the soup, corruption and on and on, but with this in mind one have to look closer on possible intent (2).

The situation was easy to exploit by the people at he top. For reasons more or less benign.

 

[manifesto]

Impossible? Are you not fluent in English?

Try again, Regnad.

 

[Belz...]

I'm trying.

Dodge noted.

 

[manifesto]

Dodge noted.

No. I'm trying to discuss two cases of problems with the 'evidence' in the official investigations of the JFK assassination.

You are trying to introduce a meta discussion on top of that. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I'm trying to discuss two cases of problems with the 'evidence' in the official investigations of the JFK assassination.

You are trying to introduce a meta discussion on top of that. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

You've stated that you believe that a shot or shots came from the front. Where specifically do you believe the shooter(s) to have been located for such shot(s)?

How do initials or lack of them on the bullets impact your alternate hypothesis?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Try again, Regnad.

Where's your bucket that contains, your container that holds, your theory that accounts for the evidence?

I hope that's sufficiently non-puerile for you.

 

[Belz...]

You are trying to introduce a meta discussion on top of that. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

Really ? What kind of meta discussion would that be ?

 

[BStrong]

1. Does the evidence hold up for closer scrutiny?

2. If not, why?

What I'm trying to do here is showing that two cases of critical importance for the veracity of the official explanation to the JFK assassination, does not hold up.

When this is done (1) the next question is why this is the case (2).



Well, so far we only have John Hunts word on this I guess. He got special permission to investigate CE-399 at NARA and is certain that there are three engraved initials from the three FBI personel in charge att the lab in D.C., but not from SA Elmer Todd.

I strongly doubt that he would lie about this extremely important finding, of the same reason that I strongly doubt that Krusch is lying. It is too easy to check.




And I'm suggesting that since the DPD used a diamond pen for custody marking (Lt Day's WC testimony), and since the FBI used a diamond pen for specimen marking (i.e. "Q-6" et.c. on the empty shells), that the probable method used by Elmer Todd for marking custody on CE-399 was also with a diamond pen.

And I agree, there was much confusion, extreme lack of competence and good routines, too many different agencies in the soup, corruption and on and on, but with this in mind one have to look closer on possible intent (2).

The situation was easy to exploit by the people at he top. For reasons more or less benign.

And from your stated pov, the only plausible explanation is a conspiracy, and my pov is that any inconsistency 52 years on can be explained by the initial confusion of the day and the crime, human frailty, CYA as sop and the problems related to a complete lack of sop on the part of Washington (FBI and the SS) addressing a assassination attempt or a successful assassination and the inability of the different fed. state and local agencies involved to act in a coordinated effort wrt evidence collection and documentation.

 

[JayUtah]

1. Does the evidence hold up for closer scrutiny?

2. If not, why?

What I'm trying to do here is showing that two cases of critical importance for the veracity of the official explanation to the JFK assassination, does not hold up.

When this is done (1) the next question is why this is the case (2).

Yes, you're doing exactly what every single JFK conspiracy theorist has done for decades. Well, to be accurate, every single conspiracy theory in every genre of them. But this silliness has persisted for decades in the JFK case. I'll tell you why it gets no traction among real historians.

You're trying to convert the argument into one where you advocate something but bear no burden of proof for it. Specifically you're trying to erode belief so that some abstract, undefined conspiracy theory suddenly looks rosier by comparison. There's a well-practiced method for doing that, and your use of it is abundantly transparent. Here it is:

First, focus on marginalia. Forget the consilience of proof that everyone else uses. Forget the principal evidence and find some niggling detail to obsess over. Elevate it to the status of "critical importance" by no better means that your say-so.

Second, imply there's a universal objective standard of proof that a theory must meet in order to be believed at all. In other words, drive a wedge as tightly as you can into the inductive gap and fill the opening with all that marginalia. Ignore any requests to justify your standard of proof -- keep implying that it's a natural standard. In other words, beg the question that your analysis really is universal and sound. Ignore any requests to present a better theory, because your goal is simply to measure the conventional narrative against your invented standard and show that, according to that measure, it's "too full of holes" to believe.

Third, shift the burden of proof. It's not your job to present a better explanation. It's your job to draft whomever will oblige you into defending the conventional narrative against your speculation and contrived standards. Anyone who disputes your identification of holes in the narrative must be immediately styled as a proxy to defend the narrative, regardless of whether he believes in it or not. Use lots of rhetoric designed to force people either to accept the conventional narrative in all its particulars (and occasionally with all its warts) or to concede that some conspiracy theory might be plausible. Allow no middle ground.

Fourth, having thus dispelled of the "official story," imply that there's something out there waiting. But don't actually say what it is, because your job is simply to show the folly of the conventional narrative. Answering the hard questions is left to other people.

You won't present your beliefs because they're vastly more full of holes than the conventional narrative. And having established that stories with holes cannot be believed, you're stuck. Your beliefs can't even stand up to your own standard of proof. Every single conspiracy theorist ever relies upon this double standard. Your claims here are no different.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I'm trying to discuss two cases of problems with the 'evidence' in the official investigations of the JFK assassination.

You are trying to introduce a meta discussion on top of that. Go ahead but leave me out of it.

No, you're the one delving into meta-discussion, as outlined above. And so far you've pretty much left yourself out of the other aspects of the discussion as well.

You're being quizzed on the evidence, but it boils down to you simply trying to impose absurd personal expectations of behavior and procedure on other people. For obvious reasons it doesn't wash, and it hasn't washed for decades.

You clearly have some alternative belief, but you're obviously terrified to present it because you know we will hold it to your standards, whereupon it will fail spectacularly.

And you're being asked to justify your approach, which is hardly novel or clever.

 

[manifesto]

And from your stated pov, the only plausible explanation is a conspiracy, ...

No. I have stated that I believe that there was a cover up. But, before I go in to that I have to establish that the 'evidence' in this two particular cases is not the 'evidence' that it is supposed to be.

After that, step two, is to look in to (which I have) possible explanations for this and after that, the most probable explanation/s. As I said, I strongly believe there was a cover up but I'll take it one step at a time, all in due course.

... and my pov is that any inconsistency 52 years on can be explained by the initial confusion of the day and the crime, human frailty, CYA as sop and the problems related to a complete lack of sop on the part of Washington (FBI and the SS) addressing a assassination attempt or a successful assassination and the inability of the different fed. state and local agencies involved to act in a coordinated effort wrt evidence collection and documentation.

But, you can not assume that before looking into the details. How would sufficient evidence for a cover up look like if you were in charge?

What would you hypothetically accept?

 

[manifesto]

Where's your bucket that contains, your container that holds, your theory that accounts for the evidence?

I hope that's sufficiently non-puerile for you.

The "bucket" is all yours, Regnad. I suggest that you get rid of it and try something else, more suitable for the task.

 

[manifesto]

Really ? What kind of meta discussion would that be ?

This kind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I have stated that I believe that there was a cover up.

What were your shadowy conspirators covering up?

 

[JayUtah]

No. I have stated that I believe that there was a cover up.

Explain how there can be a coverup that is not also a conspiracy.

But, before I go in to that I have to establish that the 'evidence' in this two particular cases is not the 'evidence' that it is supposed to be.

After that, step two, is to look in to (which I have) possible explanations...

No. You do this in two steps so that you can apply a different standard of proof for each step. You propose to dismiss the conventional narrative by one set of standards, then speculate about possible coverups according to a different standard of proof.

That isn't how the real world works, which is why after decades the conspiracy theorists are no closer to solving the case than they were at the beginning.

What would you hypothetically accept?

And end-to-end theory for what happened that day and afterward, with the ability to explain not only the outlying evidence you're obsessing over, but the rest of it as well (better than the conventional narrative), and the ability to identify the agents of the coverup.

The "bucket" is all yours, Regnad. I suggest that you get rid of it and try something else, more suitable for the task.

You can whine all you want about his analogy, but it embodies the question we're all asking you and which you assiduously sidestep.

 

[Belz...]

This kind.

Yeah, ok. You're not looking for a conversation. You're just trolling, now.

 

[pgwenthold]

What were your shadowy conspirators covering up?

This is a good big question, and exposes problems in the smaller details.

For example, the supposed "pristine magic bullet" being planted. Why? Why would the conspiracy plant a bullet on Connolly's stretcher, much less a "pristine" looking one? We know that Connolly was shot, so what is there to hide about it? And how does planting a "pristine" bullet help hide that? This is apparently one really smart conspiracy, knowing at of time that Connolly's wounds would not require destruction of the bullet. I mean, we actually used sophisticated testing to affirm that it is possible, but no, the conspiracy knew it all along.

Some of the things that people have the conspiratists doing make no sense at all.

 

[Belz...]

Some of the things that people have the conspiratists doing make no sense at all.

It makes sense to the theorists, though. Anything that sounds sinister and evil is included in the conspiracy, whether or not it makes sense. When you point it out to them, they give you the "god works in mysterious ways" treatment.