Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[turingtest]

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.

(I think I like "sinsilience"- it just has that ring to it)

 

[JayUtah]

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

But it's likely, based on your history here, that you will ignore anything we bring up, unless you have a canned response for it.

In addition to the reasons I've already stated, there are other reasons to be skeptical of your insistence that we watch your entire presentation before discussing any of it.

First, you seem to post links to things you've written or produced, without discussing them. We rightly suspect you may just be driving attention toward your sites etc.

Second, your errors to date seem to be quite simple logic errors. As I mentioned earlier in connection with your polygraph article, you can cite all manner of testimony from Herndon or the HSCA and fill up several thousand words of essay, then shoot yourself in the foot with simple inference errors in the last paragraph where you draw the key conclusion. In that case we literally only have to show that last paragraph in order to refute your finding. You seem to want attention paid to your claims in a degree commensurate to your effort in producing and presenting them. If, as is characteristic of your writing so far, the case you present at length in your video turns on some key assumption or inference, then that's all we'd have to consider. It's not unreasonable for you to abstract your line of reasoning so that we can see immediately whether you've committed a simple error.

Third and more important, conspiracy theorists often produce large, monolithic presentations. With an increase in page-count and running time comes an inability for a critic to remember all the claims made. It's an obfuscation technique. I've sat through 4-hour conspiracy films and 500-page conspiracy books that seem largely aimed at putting enough words or pictures between the key propositions to preclude identifying all the contradictions and inconsistencies among them.

 

[JayUtah]

(I think I like "sinsilience"- it just has that ring to it)

Thanks, but I misparsed the Latin and invented a word that probably is not grammatically defensible in that language. The customary opposite of cum is sine, but unlike sine, cum- has a flourishing side career as a prefix in compound words. Sunsilience is probably more defensible, e.g., as in "asunder."

But separation is not the key concept. To "leap simultaneously" to a conclusion is the philosophical essence of the concept of consilience. Blindfold ten people. Place them a short distance apart in a room and tell them to leap in the direction they feel they should go. Consilience is the notion that ten blindfolded people will simultaneously leap to the same place in the room (and, in this travesty of an analogy, collide). That means each one of them would have gone there anyway. But the fact that all of them went there independently means something.

Ten blindfolded people leaping to different random places is the lack of consilience, but does not capture the notion of the cheating that forums Harris' core error. The analogy in Harris' case would be to remove the blindfolds and let one person jump first. The other guys see this and say, "Well, I was going to jump over there, but since you've jumped here..."

Hence maybe postsilience or proptersilience. I would also contemplate subtersilience, although the literal translation lacks.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

But Jay is wrong.

It is presenting the evidence and sources, that complies 100% with the way the best skeptics evaluate difficult issues. Dawkins and Harris almost get boring when they talk about evidence, evidence and more evidence.

And Jay, as well as you, need to define what aspect of "consilience" you are referring to and how exactly, I am not consistent with it.

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.

Jay's accusations are totally unsupported. He needs to explain first, what "evidentiary development" I am impeding. I do contest the validity of CE399, but I present a massive quantity of verifiable evidence to support my case. You can find it in this very comprehensive article, which no one seems interested in discussing:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

He also needs to explain why he thinks my evidence is isolated from other valid evidence. In fact, a great deal of my analysis is BASED on the Warren Commission.

It's not good enough to just blurt out these accusations. They need to be supported very specifically by verbatim citations of any statements I made which he/you feel are invalid.

How do I defend myself from vague, sweeping allegations that not only, lack any kind of justification, but which aren't even defined in his arguments?

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

I find it amazing that you won't even talk about the verifiable and very specific evidence I present from top scientists and the Warren Commission but are totally impressed by vague accusations that don't even specify what it is that he is complaining about.

And I see no reason to answer questions based on such a mistaken notion of proper use of consilience in this context;

That isn't a good excuse, even if you had made some kind of effort to prove your accusation, it is not my procedures that are at issue here. It is the facts that are not in dispute.

If I had never been born, the questions would remain as to why the limo passengers reacted as they did, simultaneous and in perfect unison with Zapruder's reaction. And why the large majority of witnesses described shots at the end which match quite nicely with shots at 285 and 313 as well as a great deal of other verifiable evidence.

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...)

It sounds like she really is. Do you think she would be impressed by vague accusations that are totally free from any kind of specificity?

Perhaps you should also ask her whether it is preferable to answer the toughest questions or to dodge them with dubious excuses.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh, the irony!

Specificity, specificity, specificity!

Ambiguous accusations don't cut it, sir.

You need to demonstrate why you believe that my analysis is isolated from any kind of valid evidence. In fact, there is NOTHING I have posted in support of the 285 shot, that contradicts the known, accepted evidence.

And you will prove that by failing to present even a single example.

 

[JayUtah]

And Jay, as well as you, need to define what aspect of "consilience" you are referring to and how exactly, I am not consistent with it.

The independence of development and analysis of evidence in each specific field.

Jay's accusations are totally unsupported. He needs to explain first, what "evidentiary development" I am impeding.

I didn't say "impeding." I said influencing or coloring. And it's all covered in my post.

When you look at a film of people doing things and formulate hypotheses for why they are doing it and why they do it that way, you are developing that evidence. Similarly, when you consider the testimony of dozens of witnesses to an event and, knowing that they are likely to differ in their recollection of detail, attempt to synthesize a summary narrative, you are developing that evidence.

The development of evidence involves many cognitive processes and is consequently subject to bias, imagination, and all the other things cognitive application brings with it. Hence it is vitally important to carry out the development of evidence in a sphere isolated from other kinds of evidence pertaining to the same occurrence.

He also needs to explain why he thinks my evidence is isolated from other valid evidence. In fact, a great deal of my analysis is BASED on the Warren Commission.

That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with anything I posted. Go back and read for comprehension.

How do I defend myself from vague, sweeping allegations that not only, lack any kind of justification, but which aren't even defined in these arguments?

You can start by not announcing so brazenly how proud you are of ignoring what other people say. If you want to ignore me, fine. Do it, but own it and pay the price. That means either deal with what I say, or -- if you're going to announce that you won't listen to me anymore -- pay the price of ignoring it in toto.

 

[JayUtah]

You need to demonstrate why you believe that my analysis is isolated from any kind of valid evidence.

If that's what you got out of my post then you have serious reading comprehension problems.

 

[Robert Harris]

(I think I like "sinsilience"- it just has that ring to it)

I wonder if you appreciate the absurdity of claiming that corroborations are nothing more than "circular reasoning"?

If one argues that the reactions following 285, were caused by a gunshot, what are the best challenges that could be presented to him? How about:

1. Are the other witness statements consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

2. Are the best scientific analyses consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

3. Are the testimonies of the people who reacted, consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

Do you REALLY think that "yes" answers to each of those questions, constitute "circular reasoning"??

What do you suppose Mr. Utah would have said, if the answers to each of those questions were "no"?? Do you suppose he might have been a bit more impressed?

 

[JayUtah]

I wonder if you appreciate the absurdity of claiming that corroborations are nothing more than "circular reasoning"?

I'm not claiming corroboration is circular reasoning. I'm claiming what you're doing is circular reasoning.

Do you REALLY think that "yes" answers to each of those questions, constitute "circular reasoning"??

Witness statements, abstract scientific findings -- all these may be variously interpreted. When you use the outcome of the analysis of one form of evidence to select which interpretation of the other forms of evidence you think is best, you have expressly violated consilience. And your questions do explicitly that.

Then when you go on to say the eyewitness testimony supports your analysis of the film, the reasoning becomes circular. Because you expressly colored that other evidence to match the shade of your initial proposition, it may see to you to be a harmonious palette of evidence, but it would be entirely circular.

That's why circular reasoning is so insidious. You can't point to one inference in the chain of inferences and say, "This is wrong." You have to look at the entire circle of inference as a whole. This is why many people are completely unable to see circular reasoning of their own device; it usually requires someone else to patiently point it out to them. Circles of reasoning seem very airtight.

What do you suppose Mr. Utah would have said, if the answers to each of those questions were "no"?? Do you suppose he might have been a bit more impressed?

Ask me what I would say. Don't ask someone else to put words in my mouth.

 

[Hans]

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.

No you didn't please read my rules which you agreed to follow so then we can actually begin.

You said earlier and I accepted your challenge

I will challenge you to debate under your own rules, but you will evade my challenge, won't you? Yesterday, 03:16 PM

 

[Robert Harris]

No you didn't please read my rules which you agreed to follow so then we can actually begin.

You said earlier and I accepted your challenge

I guess I overlooked that.

Would you like to begin?

Perhaps we could start with this article.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

 

[Robert Harris]

Specificity, specificity, specificity!

Ambiguous accusations don't cut it, sir.

You need to demonstrate why you believe that my analysis is isolated from any kind of valid evidence. In fact, there is NOTHING I have posted in support of the 285 shot, that contradicts the known, accepted evidence.

And you will prove that by failing to present even a single example.

Turingfest, may I take your silence to be a confirmation that you have found no examples of my 285 analysis contradicting evidence from the Warren Commission?

Or do you just need a little more time?

 

[Pooneil]

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

Why fight, deny and reject my simple request all this time then start addressing it now? Even in this antagonistic and incomplete way?

Your video is 1:16 hours long. I just want you to tell me what conclusions you've drawn in the video and where I can find the support for those conclusions. Or is it that the entire video is primarily about my question and must be taken in its whole?

Surely you have have some conclusions and supported them in some way or you wouldn't be referring me to the video in the first place. Right?

Please answer me...

Specificity, specificity, specificity!

 

[Robert Harris]

Why fight, deny and reject my simple request all this time then start addressing it now? Even in this antagonistic and incomplete way?

Your video is 1:16 hours long. I just want you to tell me what conclusions you've drawn in the video and where I can find the support for those conclusions. Or is it that the entire video is primarily about my question and must be taken in its whole?

Surely you have have some conclusions and supported them in some way or you wouldn't be referring me to the video in the first place. Right?

Yes, I have concluded that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired all the shots.

But that doesn't mean much without considering the evidence which brought me to that conclusion. When I originally created this presentation, Youtube limited videos to 10 minutes, so I had to break it into multiple parts. Perhaps you will find these brief, 10 minutes segments more palatable for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44

And why would you accuse me of being "antagonistic and incomplete"? I have been very cordial with you and it has been you who has been demanding an incomplete version of my analysis - so frequently, that it is approaching the point of harassment.

 

[turingtest]

I wonder if you appreciate the absurdity of claiming that corroborations are nothing more than "circular reasoning"?

If one argues that the reactions following 285, were caused by a gunshot, what are the best challenges that could be presented to him? How about:

1. Are the other witness statements consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

2. Are the best scientific analyses consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

3. Are the testimonies of the people who reacted, consistent with shots at 285 and 313?

Do you REALLY think that "yes" answers to each of those questions, constitute "circular reasoning"??

What do you suppose Mr. Utah would have said, if the answers to each of those questions were "no"?? Do you suppose he might have been a bit more impressed?

Well, let's reframe those questions, but disregarding 313, since nobody is contesting a shot (or a reaction to it) there:

1) Are the other witness statements consistent with a shot at other than 285?

2) Are the best scientific analyses consistent with a shot at other than 285?

3) Are the testimonies of the people who reacted, consistent with a shot at other than 285?

Consilience isn't a question only of whether evidences are "consistent with" a conclusion, it's whether they independently, in their own substance, without coloration by the conclusion, point towards it, and, in combination, only toward it. Your conclusion is "a shot at 285," which you initially reached by way of "startle reflex." But the ear-witness testimonies you've further adduced as evidence for that shot at that time don't, by themselves, say "at 285," nor do they give enough objective substance that you can work backward from 313 to it. The circle here is that you've decided the ear-witness testimonies are additional evidence for a conclusion only by a process of interpreting those testimonies in light of the conclusion. As I've said, and you just can not seem to get, your interpretation of the testimony doesn't corroborate the "startle reflex," it follows from it.

 

[turingtest]

Turingfest, may I take your silence to be a confirmation that you have found no examples of my 285 analysis contradicting evidence from the Warren Commission?

Or do you just need a little more time?

You can take my silence to be anything that makes you feel better about yourself. It's really just the exasperation I would feel toward a child who just cannot seem to grasp a simple point, and for whom all the time in the world would never be enough to get it.

(There's also a thing called IRL- I have one, you? This silly prancing and demanding immediate answers suggests not)

 

[Pooneil]

Yes, I have concluded that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired all the shots.

So you've said.

But that doesn't mean much without considering the evidence which brought me to that conclusion.

Does your line of thinking in drawing that conclusion include location(s) of other shooter(s)? Your continued fighting the question leads me to believe your reasoning does not include this particular point and there is no reason to watch the video to look for an answer. If that is true, then fine, please just say so and I'll stop asking you.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And AGAIN. You don't even know that "skeptical" MEANS "open-minded and objective".

In fairness, I used it as a synonym for "doubtful."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Here you go, Mr. Harris: Eric Lipton was the recipient of the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. I can only imagine how much he'd welcome another prize on his mantle, thanks in large part to your fine work. You can reach him by calling The New York Times at (212) 556-1234.

I can provide you other names with equivalent credentials and notoriety if you like. Just ask!

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, let's reframe those questions, but disregarding 313, since nobody is contesting a shot (or a reaction to it) there:

1) Are the other witness statements consistent with a shot at other than 285?

Yes. Involuntary startle reactions must begin within 1/3rd of a second, but often they are faster. As I wrote in the article I linked for you, the shot could have been fired as late as 288, but could not have been earlier than 285.

2) Are the best scientific analyses consistent with a shot at other than 285?

Yes. There is all kinds of evidence for a shot at 313. I'm not sure if we can label the evidence for shots at 150-160 and 223, as purely "scientific"; it is much more visual, but I and most of your colleagues find it quite convincing.

3) Are the testimonies of the people who reacted, consistent with a shot at other than 285?

Yes, they are also consistent with a shot at 313 and to a lesser extent, with the earlier shots, although close comparison with their visible actions is often needed in most of those cases.

Do you notice how eager I am to answer your questions? Why are you so reluctant to answer mine?

Consilience isn't a question only of whether evidences are "consistent with" a conclusion,

That is not what I said. I said my reliance on evidence and reason is consistent with the methodology of the best of the skeptics, who frequently make that clear in their talks and debates. This has nothing to do with conclusions.

it's whether they independently, in their own substance, without coloration by the conclusion, point towards it,

Please define "coloration by the conclusion"? Are you accusing me of basing my analyses on a predetermined conclusion? If so, how did you confirm what was in my mind when I evaluated this evidence?

Do you suppose I spun a wheel of fortune and it landed on 285, so I decided to fabricate a theory of a shot at 285? If so, I sure was lucky that Alvarez and Stroscio came along and just randomly selected that same frame, eh?

And how lucky could I be, that all those people reacted in the same 1/6th of one second?

And praise Jesus that the wheel didn't land on a low number, or I would have contradicted the large consensus of the witnesses, just as another rather dubious theory does

My conclusions were the product of the evidence, not the other way around. I am disappointed that you would make such an accusation, knowing the quantity and quality of the verifiable evidence I have been posting over these last few days.

and, in combination, only toward it. Your conclusion is "a shot at 285," which you initially reached by way of "startle reflex."

How could you possibly know I how "initially reached" this conclusion? Perhaps instead of guessing and presenting your guess as fact, you could simply ask me.

But the ear-witness testimonies you've further adduced as evidence for that shot at that time don't, by themselves, say "at 285,"

Yes, I seriously doubt that most of them knew there was a frame 285.

nor do they give enough objective substance that you can work backward from 313 to it.

Why would I work backward?

The circle here is that you've decided the ear-witness testimonies are additional evidence for a conclusion only by a process of interpreting those testimonies in light of the conclusion.

ONLY???

How many times have I explained to you, the specific forms of evidence which support my conclusion? Did you read them?

Surely, you just overlooked them or you wouldn't have made the ludicrous claim that I "ONLY" based my conclusions on "a process of interpreting those testimonies in light of the conclusion".

Not only was that not my only form of evidence, but I never used it at all, as you must know, from reading that article I linked for you.

Since you seem concerned about how I initially came to the conclusion that there was a shot at 285, I will explain to you exactly, how that happened.

Prior to 1995, I was a typical JFK conspiracy buff. No SBT, a shot from the front at 313, Oswald was innocent, etc. My enlightenment came when I bought a CD on the assassination, by the Medio company, which included a low resolution (320x240 if memory serves) version of the Zapruder film, in Quicktime format.

I owned a PC shop but was a closet Mac user and a bit of a hacker back then. The Zapruder file was hidden, but I managed to find it, then hijacked it to my hard drive. I had never had a copy of the film on my hard drive before, let alone, one that I could single step, back and forth, through. I learned a lot, including the apparent fact that JFK and Connally reacted almost simultaneously to what appeared to have been a shot at 223.

I distinctly remember looking at Mrs. Connally's reactions. My first thoughts were, that this poor woman really was confused, because she obviously didn't realize when her husband had been hit. Following 223, she only glanced at him briefly, and was mostly focused on JFK. It only took a few minutes however, for it so sink in, that he (JBC) had turned his back to her. She couldn't see his contorted face like I could, from the Zapruder side of the road.

I then started to peruse her testimony. She said she first heard a "terrible noise" which she didn't at the time, realize was a gunshot. Then she looked back and saw JFK with his hands raised to roughly the height of his face. It was after that, that she heard the shot that she believed, wounded her hubby. She added that the next shot, pelted them with pieces of gore from the headshot.

Even in this low resolution of the film, it was easy to see that she turned to the rear and saw the President at roughly frame 257. She then, briefly glanced to the front and then returned her gaze to JFK.

Then suddenly, she snapped back toward her husband, and seemed to be pulling him back to her, exactly as she said she did in reaction to the second shot.

What makes her such a valuable witness is not that she was any more reliable than the others. It is that we can follow her quite easily in the film and match up her testimony with her actions.

This very slow motion animation contains no annotations or propaganda. Please watch it, asking yourself three questions:

1. When did she look back at JFK?

2. When did she react as she testified, to the apparent shot that she believed, wounded Gov. Connally.

3. Was she the only one reacting then?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif