Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

Yeah but Bob has isolated himself from those inconvenient posts, Jay.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah but Bob has isolated himself from those inconvenient posts, Jay.

Looks like he's spurred his fantasy horse into full Gish gallop mode. Did we take bets already on how soon he'd do that? If so, someone will be getting an Independence Day payout.

 

[turingtest]

I'm sorry that you once again, feel compelled to rely on negative stereotyping. In this case, it is even worse, since there is nothing in my arguments which are "anomalies".

The top advocates for the lone nut theory have relied on visible reactions to to form their conclusions, too. For example, Gerald Posner and many like him, have based much of their case for a shot circa frame 160, on a little girl - Rosemary Willis, who stopped running, shortly after that frame. I fully agree with them BTW, that there was a a shot then, though for different reasons.

But consider the difference between their visual evidence and mine. Tell me, if these reactions had occurred right after frame 160, rather than a very inconvenient, frame 285, how would you have seen them?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

And don't you find it to be an amazing coincidence that Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Stroscio, determined that there was a loud and startling noise, which startled Zapruder at frame 285 and caused him to blur frames at 290-291, which is precisely when the reactions of the limo passengers began, in the range of 290-292?

And don't you think that the simple fact that "most" of the relevant witnesses, according to the Warren Commission, reported that the last two shots were "bunched together", is significant? Do you think that shots at 285 and 313 - 1.5 seconds apart, qualify as "bunched together"?
All of these reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second, at exactly the same instant that Zapruder was determined to have reacted. And the reactions are a perfect match with the large consensus of witnesses that day.

That qualifies as a bit more than an "anomaly", don't you think?

Imagine my surprise here- you respond to a post characterizing your CTist mindset and methodology by not only missing the point, but by emphasizing it. Seriously, Bob- consilience. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. For example, the passage of yours that I've highlighted- do you really need to have it explained to you why this is, in fact, reversed consilience? Work on it a bit- maybe it'll come to you.

 

[Robert Harris]

Imagine my surprise here- you respond to a post characterizing your CTist mindset and methodology by not only missing the point, but by emphasizing it. Seriously, Bob- consilience. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. For example, the passage of yours that I've highlighted- do you really need to have it explained to you why this is, in fact, reversed consilience? Work on it a bit- maybe it'll come to you.

Thank you for the kind offer. Yes, I do indeed, need to have this concept of "reversed consilience" explained to me. I have "worked on it a bit" and remain in the deepest throes of incomprehension.

My thinking has been that I should believe such a large preponderance of witnesses, especially when I can corroborate them through the best scientific and empirical evidence which confirms that these people simultaneously reacted to the first of those apparent shots which were "bunched together".

But please be patient with me and explain (slowly, if you would) about this concept of "reversed consilience".

 

[Robert Harris]

I seek an answer and a specific reference to where the answer is given and explained so a discussion can follow. Nothing else. Your continued evasive misreading of straight forward words is once again noted.

Where were the gunman that fired at JFK located?

I have answered you repeatedly and explained in great detail, why I prefer to present my analysis in a manner which includes all the relevant evidence.

If you ask again, I will refer you to my previous answers.

 

[turingtest]

Thank you for the kind offer. Yes, I do indeed, need to have this concept of "reversed consilience" explained to me. I have "worked on it a bit" and remain in the deepest throes of incomprehension.

My thinking has been that I should believe such a large preponderance of witnesses, especially when I can corroborate them through the best scientific and empirical evidence which confirms that these people simultaneously reacted to the first of those apparent shots which were "bunched together".

But please be patient with me and explain (slowly, if you would) about this concept of "reversed consilience".

What does the earwitness testimony say about the bunched shots, independently of your deduction from "startle reflexes," that leads you to think they were at 285-313?

 

[Hans]

Would you please be specific about what exactly I have presented that bores you?

What you are presently doing

Or you might consider engaging in honest, civil debate.

As noted earlier you seem unable to do that

Surely, if my analyses are half as bad as you claim, you will find enormous happiness in putting me in my place, employing reason, and verifiable evidence.

I made no such claim I stated you are boring because you have heard the remarks about your claim by others and keep refusing to note them.

Boring and thirty five pages from now you will be doing exactly the same thing you are doing now because debate is NOT your reason for being here.

 

[Robert Harris]

consilience

As I'm sure everyone here knows, "consilience", means (American Heritage/Apple dictionary)

agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, esp. science and the humanities.

After watching countless lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, etc, there seems to be a wide consilience, that the best approach to difficult controversies, is to deal with them through reason and empirical evidence - and most of all, objectivity.

Does anyone disagree with that?

And I have been doing exactly that, posting numerous articles and presentations, which include a great deal of verifiable, empirical evidence.

Perhaps turingtest will explain in detail, why he thinks I have not been consistent with that consilience.

 

[turingtest]

Looks like he's spurred his fantasy horse into full Gish gallop mode. Did we take bets already on how soon he'd do that? If so, someone will be getting an Independence Day payout.

There's nothing more pathetic than a Gish Gallop on a fantasy horse running on such tired old knees, the same old same old that every CTist thinks he is bringing brand-new to the track. And for someone who insists that folks here need to read (or watch) in full his presentations before refuting them, he sure doesn't seem very interested in reading this very thread (and its precursors) in full to see if they've already been refuted.

 

[Pooneil]

I have answered you repeatedly and explained in great detail, why I prefer to present my analysis in a manner which includes all the relevant evidence.



If you ask again, I will refer you to my previous answers.

Do what you will. Your evasion is noted by everyone reading his thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[turingtest]

As I'm sure everyone here knows, "consilience", means (American Heritage/Apple dictionary)

agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, esp. science and the humanities.

After watching countless lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, etc, there seems to be a wide consilience, that the best approach to difficult controversies, is to deal with them through reason and empirical evidence - and most of all, objectivity.

Does anyone disagree with that?

And I have been doing exactly that, posting numerous articles and presentations, which include a great deal of verifiable, empirical evidence.

Perhaps turingtest will explain in detail, why he thinks I have not been consistent with that consilience.

Seriously? Even after I linked it for you, you still don't understand consilience?

 

[JayUtah]

But please be patient with me and explain (slowly, if you would) about this concept of "reversed consilience".

I'm not falling for it. I explained slowly and carefully the concept of burden of proof, and Harris just went on believing the same thing he has for, apparently, more than 10 years.

Consilience is when evidence and observation developed in isolation suggests a single, parsimonious explanation for all of it. The convincing effect comes from the disparate ways in which the different forms of evidence are received and developed. It is considered unlikely that disparate development methods in different fields will err in the same way as to produce a false-positive conclusion.

Reverse consilience, (or, I would argue, "anti-consilience" or "sinsilience") occurs when one interpretation of one form of evidence developed by customary methods is used to color or influence the development and interpretation of other forms of evidence in a way that inappropriately makes it seem to confirm the first. It's a form of circular reasoning.

In this case the deduction of the space between two shots (the outcome of developing evidence from the fields of photography and psychology) has been used to guide the interpretation of eyewitness testimony. The testimony is then indefensibly cited as confirming the prior deduction. While the eyewitness testimony can be interpreted to confirm shots as little as 2 seconds apart, such an interpretation is not inevitable. Most witnesses did not specify with great confidence or precision how far apart the shots were. Thus the body of testimony can also be interpreted to support shots that are far enough apart to allow Oswald to have fired both of them.

The essence of anti-consilience is how the two forms of evidence are circularly applied to appear to eliminate the ambiguity in either one. The ambiguity in the photographic analysis is supposedly closed by witnesses recalling "bunched" shots, assumed to be too close together for a single shooter. Simultaneously, the ambiguity in the witness consensus is supposedly closed by photographic evidence confirming the timing of a shot. The two classes of evidence, taken as such together, is cited as a consilient system establishing the impossible timing of the shots to a high degree of confidence. It is unlikely, it is said, that the development of the evidence in each form could err the same way as to "confirm" too-quick shots.

The big boo-boo here (there are several) is that the eyewitness testimony cannot be developed in isolation to a single reliable conclusion with respect to the timing of the last two shots. It remains ambiguous and imprecise. True consilience cannot rely on cherry-picking. That's stacking the deck.

 

[Robert Harris]

What you are presently doing

I am sitting at my computer, replying to your post.

Or you might consider engaging in honest, civil debate.

As noted earlier you seem unable to do that

That is untrue.

And I will prove that to you by engaging you in a debate in which I will be totally honest and civil. I'm sure you will do the same.

Would you like to start with the reactions following Zapruder frame 285?

 

[JayUtah]

As I'm sure everyone here knows, "consilience", means (American Heritage/Apple dictionary)

Yes, you looked up "ad hominem" in the dictionary and presented the dictionary definition. Now you're looking up "consilience" in the dictionary and presenting the dictionary definition. In each case you free-associate on those stub definitions and insist that your peculiar notions of each should be taken as what everyone must mean by them.

In fact there are several books written entirely on the subject of consilience in investigation, and several people whose entire life's work has been in studying it.

Does anyone disagree with that?

Subtle attempt to change the subject.

Perhaps turingtest will explain in detail, why he thinks I have not been consistent with that consilience.

You have no idea what that word means, even after having looked it up in the dictionary. So predictably you're using it in ham-fisted fashion, invoking noted skeptics you clearly don't follow, and trying once again to validate your approach and shift the burden of proof.

Simply using different sources and forms of evidence does not achieve consilience. The difference between consilience and reverse consilience is the difference between allowing evidentiary development to proceed in isolation and using one bit of evidence, or the desired outcome, to color the development of different forms. Not only are you clearly doing the latter, you're admittedly doing the latter.

 

[Robert Harris]

Seriously? Even after I linked it for you, you still don't understand consilience?

Linking to a definition has nothing to do with the nature of your adversaries' analyses.

Why are you unable to demonstrate that my work is not consistent with the accepted procedures and methodologies of the best of the skeptics?

I have also asked you numerous questions which you have evaded. Would you like me to repost them for you as a reminder? Or would you prefer that I don't do that?

 

[JayUtah]

Why are you unable to demonstrate that my work is not consistent with the accepted procedures and methodologies of the best of the skeptics?

Probably because you've chosen to ignore those demonstrations and their authors.

I have also asked you numerous questions which you have evaded. Would you like me to repost them for you as a reminder? Or would you prefer that I don't do that?

You've tried mightily once again to shift the burden of proof. Keep in mind that the rest of the world can see you not only ignoring questions put to you, but are proud of doing it.

 

[Robert Harris]

Seriously? Even after I linked it for you, you still don't understand consilience?

And BTW, you have never linked to any kind of definition for your term, "reversed consilience". I look forward to your explanation of that and how specifically, you think it applies to my analysis.

 

[turingtest]

Linking to a definition has nothing to do with the nature of your adversaries' analyses.

Why are you unable to demonstrate that my work is not consistent with the accepted procedures and methodologies of the best of the skeptics?
I have also asked you numerous questions which you have evaded. Would you like me to repost them for you as a reminder? Or would you prefer that I don't do that?

I don't think I can do any better than to quote Jay here:

...
Simply using different sources and forms of evidence does not achieve consilience. The difference between consilience and reverse consilience is the difference between allowing evidentiary development to proceed in isolation and using one bit of evidence, or the desired outcome, to color the development of different forms. Not only are you clearly doing the latter, you're admittedly doing the latter.

That's it in a nutshell you'll never crack, because the meat inside is poison to you.

And I see no reason to answer questions based on such a mistaken notion of proper use of consilience in this context; I'd as usefully spend my time explaining to my seven-year-old niece why creationism isn't science (come to think of it, though, she's pretty smart...)

 

[Robert Harris]

Do what you will. Your evasion is noted by everyone reading his thread.

That is not an evasion. The "evasion" is your refusal to look at the presentation which contains all the information that you have requested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Looking at isolated sections, is the equivalent to quoting a book out of context. I really hope people don't do that. Early shots are discussed early in the presentation and others are discussed in various places throughout. I also present a section which discusses the shot at 285 in considerable detail and another which discusses possible shooter locations for shots at the end.

You should watch it all, if for no other reason than to seek out things that you can attack

 

[turingtest]

That is not an evasion. The "evasion" is your refusal to look at the presentation which contains all the information that you have requested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Looking at isolated sections, is the equivalent to quoting a book out of context. I really hope people don't do that. Early shots are discussed early in the presentation and others are discussed in various places throughout. I also present a section which discusses the shot at 285 in considerable detail and another which discusses possible shooter locations for shots at the end.

You should watch it all, if for no other reason than to seek out things that you can attack

Oh, the irony!