Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Sandy McCroskey]

Great catch!

Except that as you can easily see, I wasn't replying to Hank. I was replying to post #3286.



Uh huh.

So what was Hank's best argument that proves Ellsworth made a mistake?

I've spelled it out more than once already, but any critical thinker would already know the answer to that.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Great catch!

Except that as you can easily see, I wasn't replying to Hank. I was replying to post #3286.

Right. So:

The statement beginning "If Charles Swanson forgot something..." is entirely your own invention. It doesn't follow at all from what Tomtomkent wrote—not even close.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Loftus and others did some very good work in this area, and she wrote it up in a few very readable books. She's also a very nice lady.

Indeed. There are a lot of works that are very approachable to discover the limitations and expectations of witness testimony. I know this has been discussed at length elsewhere in the JFK threads, when the other Robert was trying to turn anybody and everybody to a medical witness.

It doesn't make people delusional, or dishonest. It just shows that memories years after an event may change and play tricks. The human mind likes patterns, it likes narrative, it will attempt to fit memories to a narrative.Assuming some kind cover-up over the effects of memory is a mistake. Memories are validated by objective evidence, not vice versa.

But some people want to believe the memory that best suits their story.

 

[HSienzant]

So what was Hank's best argument that proves Ellsworth made a mistake?

This is at least the fourth time for this list:

== QUOTE ==
I see several reasons to doubt him.

1. There's no corroboration for his recollection.
2. His recollection is from decades after the fact.
3. The contemporaneous testimony and memos put the recovered weapon on the same floor as the recovered shells.
4. Photos and films show the weapon recovered was on the sixth floor.
5. No photos and films exist of this supposed other rifle.
6. Only one weapon was removed from the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63 - the MC with the serial # C2766.

Why should we trust the outlier recollection? Why do you put any credibility into it, when you can't remember what you were arguing a few hours earlier?
== UNQUOTE ==

And the second time for this one:

== QUOTE ==
So according to you, if we believe Ellsworth's decades-later recollection, we need to discard, at a minimum:

The testimony of J.C.Day, among numerous others.
The films taken (Tom Alyea) of the rifle in the Depository (that must be a forgery)
The evidence photos taken by J.C.Day of the weapon in place.
The document created by J.C.Day affirming the weapon recovered on the sixth floor bore the serial number of C2766.
The films and photos taken by newsmen of J.C.Day leaving the building with a Mannlicher-Carcano on the afternoon of the assassination.

All of that record was created on the afternoon of the assassination. The memo you cite from Katzenbach (and wrench a few lines out of context) wasn't written until 11/25/63 - three days later. How did the memo reach back in time and get the films and photos altered?
== UNQUOTE ==


You can continue to avoid all the unpleasant evidence you want. But it does not improve your credibility, nor your argument.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What do you think caused the reactions following 285?

And back to the logical fallacies, Robert begins his fringe reset.

It's still the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Jay, you made it clear that you know more about the case than I do. I am only seeking your expert opinions.

Hilarious. He's given them to you plenty of times. I've given you the testimony minus the spin you put on it. Others here have pointed out your errors repeatedly. At this point, you're apparently merely seeking to continue the conversation so it looks like you have a legitimate point to debate.

You don't.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How many cases did Loftus discover, in which such a large consensus of witnesses made exactly the same "mistake"?

Still begging the question, Robert. You haven't established the "mistake", nor your theory, so you don't get to imbed that claim into an argument and ask the question as if it's legitimate. It's not.

This has only been explained to you ten or more times. Persisting in the repetition of logical fallacies doesn't improve your argument any.

I've already shown an alternate theory that explains the eyewitness recollections at least as well as yours, and doesn't invoke pop-up assassins in multiple locations that disappear without a trace, reactions by witnesses in a film that nobody else sees, and doesn't utilize recollections from decades after the fact, nor quotes from memos taken out of context.

You haven't even tried to rebut most of that, and the one thing you did try to argue with (that Connally heard a shot and the impact of a shot), you first said he never said anything like that, and then ultimately wound up agreeing with me that he did.

Stripped to its essence, your argument for a Z285 shot is simply your opinion, if you don't have the witnesses to buttress your argument. And you don't have Connally nor Hill. Why not revisit the witnesses and tell us how and why you know their claims of a 'double-bang' or 'two shots on top of each other' or 'two sounds almost simultaneous' at the end of the shooting fit your theory better than mine?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

I am only seeking your expert opinions.

No, you're not.

 

[Robert Harris]

Jay, I am indeed, seeking your expert opinion.

Your assertion that I am not, is begging the question, since you have no way of knowing my motives.

Is it possible Jay, that the reason you evade questions is that you know you will be challenged to support your answers?

 

[Robert Harris]

(accidental duplication)

 

[Tomtomkent]

Double post deleted to prevent spam. My mistake

 

[Robert Harris]

No, you just treated us to a couple of unproven assertions, adding additional unproven claims onto your original unproven claim to try to salvage the original unproven claim.

Please cite me verbatim, presenting unproven assertions.

This was a law enforcement professional who was involved in the most important case of his life.

You know that how?

Because there were no more important cases during his life time.

This was a law enforcement professional who was involved in the most important case of his life.

Please tell us what other high-profile cases Ellsworth worked on, and how important his role was in each, and then we can decide if your assertion is true.

Great argument! Perhaps this wasn't the most important case of his career. Maybe he investigated the death of God or the holocaust in Germany!

On the day of the assassination, Ellsworth was in Dealey Plaza as a civilian, as I recall.

What exactly, did you "recall"?

This was a federal agent, in the middle of a weekday. Of course he was on duty.

He had no official duties.

I hate to break this to you, Hank, but searching a crime scene is indeed, an official duty.

Why are you trying so hard to demean the importance of someone investigating the scene of the most important crime of his career?

He pitched in to help search the building and that was, to the best of my recollection, the extent of his involvement in this case.

You may be right, but don't you think that constantly making unproven assertions is a poor way to resolve this case? I can say all kinds of things with the caveat, "to the best of my recollection", especially when I never had such a recollection

How does that minimal involvement make him able to have perfect recall of everything he did that day decades later?

It doesn't. Maybe he was wrong.

Doesn't even come close to what I said.

It doesn't matter what you said.

He had it right, or he lied, or he suffered a delusion. Let's review the citation,

Former ATF agent Frank Ellsworth, who participated in a second search of the Book Depository conducted after 1:30p.m. on November 22, 1963, confirms that the Mannlicher-Carcano was found by a DPD detective on the fourth or fifth floor of the building, "not on the same floor as the cartridges". He adds: "I remember we talked about it, and figured that he (Oswald) must have run out from the stairwell, to the lower floor and dropped it as he was running downstairs."

He was very specific about this. If we assume he was honest, then the only way he could be wrong, is if he suffered some kind of delusion, thinking back to an event that never happened.

I have a mother with Alzheimer's Hank. She never makes up events that didn't happen. She recalls events from her childhood and thinks they happened yesterday. She has thought I was her father. And she forgets all kinds of things, going back decades. But forgetting is not the same as having delusions. Delusions actually do occur in the final stages, but by then, the patient doesn't remember how to use the bathroom or even find it.

There is no reason to think that Ellsworth conjured up such a specific, detailed memory because he was deluded. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is certainly, unlikely.

Just another straw man argument.

No, it's just another case of you misrepresenting me. I never stated or even implied that he had "perfect recall of everything". You see, I am not trying to play debate games or employ tactics that no self respecting junior high school debater would use. I am here to talk about reality.

It's strange though, that you never come to this conclusion about any of the cops who don't make inconvenient statements

Wow. What's strange about it?

I think you got me on that one. It's not strange at all that you ONLY attack witnesses who disagree with you

If six witnesses say the same thing shortly after the commission of a crime, and the hard evidence recovered tells the same story, and the autopsists determine the body confirms the eyewitness account and the hard evidence, why would *anyone* question the eyewitnesses recollection? It's strange that you would think this is a good rebuttal to Ellsworth's decades-later recollection, the problems for which I already pointed out in the past, and you ignored.

That would be a great argument if it were true.

But as we all know, the officers unanimously stated that the rifle found on the 6th floor, was a 7.65mm Mauser. Of course, we all know they changed their story, afterward - not only on the make of the rifle, but on the scope, which Weitzman described very specifically as a 2.5mm Weaver.

So, not only were those poor, dumb cops unable to identify the rifle, but the scope as well. But over the weekend following the assassination, we can be certain that the FBI was prepared to follow the instructions of Hoover and the Justice dept.

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

Suddenly, the rifle changed, as well as the scope, and another piece of evidence that Oswald had confederates who are still at large
bites the dust

I see several reasons to doubt him.

1. There's no corroboration for his recollection.

Think about it Hank. The cops were all persuaded to change their stories. But they obviously, forgot about Ellsworth, who didn't work at the DPD or the FBI office. He was an ATF agent - independent from the other agencies.

So, he didn't get the pitch.

2. His recollection is from decades after the fact.

And that proves his very specific description of events was false?

This was a federal officer for god's sake. And he had very clear recollections of other things the La Fontaines interviewed him about.

3. The contemporaneous testimony and memos put the recovered weapon on the same floor as the recovered shells.

The contemporaneous, documented description of the rifle found on the sixth floor was that it was a 7.65 Mauser.

4. Photos and films show the weapon recovered was on the sixth floor.

Begging the question. Prove that the photos and films were taken at the time of the search.

5. No photos and films exist of this supposed other rifle.

Begging the question again. How did you confirm that photos weren't taken that weren't released to the public.

6. Only one weapon was removed from the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63 - the MC with the serial # C2766.[/I]

Flagrant begging of the question. You have never proven that either.

[COLOR]Why should we trust the outlier recollection? [/COLOR]

For the same reasons we would trust any federal agent, other than those who were officially committed to a predefined conclusion.

I already covered the Katzenbach memo in detail, showing how you were taking a few lines out of context, and ignoring Katzenbach's testimony explaining the memo, and how you were merely putting your interpretation of the memo in place of his explanation of the memo. You didn't address any of that. You ignored it. Repeating the same claims, and failing to address the rebuttal, isn't a good approach.

I often ignore ridiculous statements.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

The second declaration at the top of the list was this,

"2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba , Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced."

Tell me Hank, why would they have wanted to "cut off" the notion that Oswald conspired with the commies or the fanatical right wingers? How could they have possibly felt certain about that, within 48 hours of the murder?

No. Not in the least. According to you, there weren't two rifles recovered on the sixth floor. Only one. According to the hard evidence (films and photos), the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano. And not just any Mannlicher-Carcano.

You have not proven the existence of ANY evidence which confirms that the rifle found on the sixth floor was Oswald's. All you really have is version #2 of the description of the rifle and scope that was found there, and a publicly stated policy that the FBI's main goal was to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.

Is is obvious, that they followed their orders quite well.

Oh, and before you start stereotyping me, understand that I am not saying that ANY of the cops or FBI people were "in on it" or had sinister motives.

I can remember sitting with my parents in the living room, watching coverage of the assassination, and me shooting my mouth off (hard to imagine that, eh declaring that the commies were behind the assassination and that WW3 will be starting soon.

If the govt. had accepted what the DPD and pretty much everyone else suspected, there would have been a huge public outcry that we declare war on Castro, who was tightly allied with the Soviet Union.

And if such a crisis took place, my little prediction just might have come true. And on top of that, the US would have had a hard time maintaining the moral high ground, since we had been trying to assassinate Castro for nearly a year.

That's why I think Jackie was convinced to change her testimony and why some personnel at Parkland covered up evidence that the bullet which wounded the two victims was not CE399. It would also explain why a few people in the DPD agreed to help turn two rifles into one.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It was a weekday? Then surely it is impossible for an agent to have a day of work! And nobody ever volunteered their service after a tragedy, of course it was an official duty. Why should these be shown to be true when they can just be said to be true?

 

[Robert Harris]

It was a weekday? Then surely it is impossible for an agent to have a day of work! And nobody ever volunteered their service after a tragedy, of course it was an official duty. Why should these be shown to be true when they can just be said to be true?

Shifting the burden of proof.

It was Hank who declared that Ellsworth was "off duty" then. He is the one who needs to prove his assertion.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Shifting the burden of proof.

It was Hank who declared that Ellsworth was "off duty" then. He is the one who needs to prove his assertion.

Hank offered a caveat that allows him time to check on his facts. At some point he can offer an apology or a citation.

You made a statement of fact with neither.

You both have a burden of proof. But one of you has a track record of making good on this thread and doesn't this pointing out to him.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hank offered a caveat that allows him time to check on his facts.

I would suggest that Hank "checked on the facts" before making assertions.

He bears the burden of proving his assertion and no lame, caveats relieve him of that burden.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I would suggest that Hank "checked on the facts" before making assertions.

He bears the burden of proving his assertion and no lame, caveats relieve him of that burden.

No. As I said, I expect him to make good on his.

Alas your own statement has burdens of its own.

 

[turingtest]

...

Oh, and before you start stereotyping me, understand that I am not saying that ANY of the cops or FBI people were "in on it" or had sinister motives.

I can remember sitting with my parents in the living room, watching coverage of the assassination, and me shooting my mouth off (hard to imagine that, eh declaring that the commies were behind the assassination and that WW3 will be starting soon.

If the govt. had accepted what the DPD and pretty much everyone else suspected, there would have been a huge public outcry that we declare war on Castro, who was tightly allied with the Soviet Union.

And if such a crisis took place, my little prediction just might have come true. And on top of that, the US would have had a hard time maintaining the moral high ground, since we had been trying to assassinate Castro for nearly a year.

That's why I think Jackie was convinced to change her testimony and why some personnel at Parkland covered up evidence that the bullet which wounded the two victims was not CE399. It would also explain why a few people in the DPD agreed to help turn two rifles into one.

ZOMG! Of course! It's all so clear now- America, you've been so blind! You see, in order to avert WW3 with Castro/the USSR/communism, the American government at the time took the eminently wise decision to cover up for the true "perps"- the Mafia- and pin it all on a guy who sympathized with Castro, had lived in the USSR, and claimed to be a Communist!

Seriously- wouldn't blaming it on your actual conspirators, the Mafia "thugs," also have averted WW3? After all, they weren't notably Communist or Castro sympathizers- there wouldn't have been any clamor for war with someone not blamed, just to eradicate a group the government was at war with anyway.

 

[Tomtomkent]

ZOMG! Of course! It's all so clear now- America, you've been so blind! You see, in order to avert WW3 with Castro/the USSR/communism, the American government at the time took the eminently wise decision to cover up for the true "perps"- the Mafia- and pin it all on a guy who sympathized with Castro, had lived in the USSR, and claimed to be a Communist!

Seriously- wouldn't blaming it on your actual conspirators, the Mafia "thugs," also have averted WW3? After all, they weren't notably Communist or Castro sympathizers- there wouldn't have been any clamor for war with someone not blamed, just to eradicate a group the government was at war with anyway.

While providing LBJ to push through powers to clear house and wage war on (other) organised criminals. If we play the conspiracy game to the natural conclusion.

 

[turingtest]

While providing LBJ to push through powers to clear house and wage war on (other) organised criminals. If we play the conspiracy game to the natural conclusion.

The fact is, Robert's entire system revolves around the sun of his "startle reflexes"- without that, the entire thing goes spinning off into directionless space. Even his far-flung Pluto of "Marcello!" is tethered to it, since the reasoning (such as it is) goes "startle reflexes prove shots too close together for LHO to have been the lone shooter, which proves conspiracy, which needs another suspect, therefore Marcello." There are periodic comets in the form of unspecified "other shooters." And now he's added an unnecessary, even contradictory, epicycle by claiming the gov't covered up for the true criminals to avert a world war with the commies (when blaming the true criminals would also have averted the war), by blaming a guy who was associated with the commies.

It's not a solar system rationally derived from all the evidence, it's a cartoony geocentric faith arrived at by choosing how to interpret some of it.