Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[ComfySlippers]

You haven't even tried to come up with one of your preposterous rebuttals, like there were maybe scarequotes in the memo around the word "facts," in invisible ink that only conspiracists can read.

With your permission I would like to borrow this interpretation of Robert's failed sleuthing skills and use it in real life.

The use of the invisible scare quotes... Perfect.

 

[HSienzant]

Nonsense. You don't get to decide what is significant and what is not.

We each do. You need to convince us, Robert, that your argument is true. Otherwise, why are you here?

If what he said was true, then it is extremely important and worth considering. [emphasis added]

Yes, but only if it's true. When do you to propose to prove it true? There's no point in contemplating the ramifications until then.

This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.

Kindly remember you argued that when you want to argue that Oswald should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that he's innocent because he was never convicted of the assassination. I've seen both arguments from conspiracy theorists.

I can't prove that this guy told the truth

Wrong issue. He could be telling the precise truth as he knows it, but if he's just repeating hearsay, then it's meaningless. Not everything you hear or I hear or he heard is accurate. You do understand that, right? So you need to prove the hearsay correct. Not that he told the truth as he knew it.

and you can't prove he that lied, or suffered some kind of delusion.

Straw man arguments. I understand your need to do this, as you can't rebut the arguments I did make, so you must rebut other ones of your own creation to keep the conversation going and make it appear you actually have a point.

ll we know for sure is that his story, if true, answers a lot of questions.[emphasis added]

Ah, there's the rub. You just need to prove it is. Good luck with finding confirmation for a 30-year-later recollection of hearsay. That is a pretty low standard you're willing to discuss here, isn't it? And try to utilize to point to a conspiracy, right?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I am discussing verifiable facts and empirical evidence...

In addition to the usual arguments about the identification of the rifle, ex ATF agent, Frank Ellsworth had some interesting things to say, about his experience, assisting in the search of the Depository. This is from "Oswald Talked", by Ray and Mary La Fontaine.

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."

I don't consider this absolute proof, but the source was a federal agent, and his recollections are consistent with the possibility that the first rifle found, was actually a Mauser.

You're citing a 30-year-later recollection of apparent hearsay, as you later admitted.

And it was noted in a memorandum for the record prepared on 11/23/63 by Sims and Boyd of the DPD that Frank Ellsworth was on the SIXTH FLOOR and present when the rifle was being photographed THERE.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=536&tab=page

So if Ellsworth also saw a rifle on a lower floor, how come he never mentioned two weapons? If he only remembers one - and one hidden amongst boxes is all he mentions - he remembers the one he was on the sixth floor for, and is just mis-remembering the SIXTH floor as a lower floor. Otherwise, you must argue that he saw TWO rifles hidden amongst boxes, and forgot to mention one of those, or forgot he saw TWO weapons. Neither version of events will do much to improve your argument that Ellsworth couldn't misremember anything because "he was a federal agent involved in the biggest case of his life".

It's clearly a false memory that he has of a rifle found among boxes on a lower floor. That should be enough evidence to convince anyone.

Hank

PS: Special thanks to Jean Davison, author of OSWALD'S GAME for pointing this document out to me.

http://www.amazon.com/Oswalds-Game-Jean-Davison/dp/0393017648

http://www.amazon.com/Oswalds-Game-Jean-Davison-ebook/dp/B00F3QYL0Q

 

[HSienzant]

All that has been established for 52 years. You don't know where to find the evidence?

Start here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. DAY. I met Captain Fritz. He wanted photographs of the rifle before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if Captain Fritz told you that the rifle had not been moved?
Mr. DAY. He told me he wanted photographs before it was moved, if I remember correctly. He definitely told me it had not been moved, and the reason for the photographs he wanted it photographed before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what the reporter has marked or what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 718, and ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is a photograph made by me of the rifle where it was found in the northwest portion of the sixth floor, 411 Elm Street, Dallas.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 719 and ask you to state if you know what that is.
Mr. DAY. It is a picture of the portion of the northwest floor where the rifle was found.
== UNQUOTE ==

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce718.jpg

That photo, among many others, was studied by the HSCA and determined to be the weapon owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, bearing serial number C2766.

You haven't proven that this testimony was accurate.

Day was there, you were not. Day can testify to what he did, and that is evidence. If you want to impeach his testimony, find some evidence to impeach it. Your complaint that it's not proven to be accurate is meaningless.

You need to establish the photo Day says he took on the afternoon of the assassination is not the photo Day took on the afternoon of the assassination.

We'll wait.

And not hold our breath.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

We each do. You need to convince us, Robert, that your argument is true.

No I don't and you guys wouldn't agree with me if I had a note from God

And I don't make arguments based on "need". I base them on the evidence. If Ellsworth and the officers who talked to him about Oswald's rifle were truthful, then it is a fact that there were two murder weapons.

Some issues cannot be resolved, in fact, many issues associated with this case cannot be resolved with certainty. Only blind advocates claim otherwise.

I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots. And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.

Other issues, like the sniper locations, are also, not absolute certainties. The question of whether Ellsworth told the truth, also falls into that category. I see no probable reason to think that he didn't. You obviously do.

Otherwise, why are you here?

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I am here to present relevant facts and evidence, associated with the assassination.

Yes, but only if it's true. When do you to propose to prove it true?

Will it help if I tell you another 12 times, that I cannot prove it is true? Coming from a federal agent, it is obviously likely, however.

Kindly remember you argued that when you want to argue that Oswald should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm pretty sure I never said that. Cite me verbatim please. I have lost track of how many times you have misrepresented my statements.

Or that he's innocent because he was never convicted of the assassination.

I said no such thing. It gets tiresome having to continually correct your misrepresentations.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No I don't and you guys wouldn't agree with me if I had a note from God

Then what are you hoping to achieve in any conversation?

 

[Tomtomkent]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I am here to present relevant facts and evidence, associated with the assassination.

That is not answering the question. Why are you presenting them? To what end?

 

[Belz...]

No I don't

If you don't have to convince the people you are bringing your evidence to, then what's the point ?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

And they all were susceptible to the FBI's commitment to insure that no evidence would be made public, that proved conspiracy.

The FBI's commitment—as explicitly stated in the very memo you cite, further above, for this contention—was to making known "all the facts."

So no evidence that proved conspiracy would, indeed, be made public, as no such evidence existed.

The FBI's stated policy, taints the testimonies of any witnesses they came in contact with. So, we must always take testimonies from such witnesses, with a grain of salt.

Tell me again now that you don't believe the FBI was "in on it." How does that compute?

But this is very convenient. You are well on the way of clearing the board of all the hard evidence and eliminating all obstacles to your fantasy.

 

[JayUtah]

Standards being requested were not based on trial law.

Correct. The legal proscription against hearsay in court derives from a specific constitutional guarantee: that of the right to confront hostile witnesses. Hearsay disallows meaningful cross-examination. If Tom is a defendant, and only Dick testifies to what he heard Harry say he saw Tom do, Tom can confront Dick, but he can't necessarily confront Harry. Because Dick is a sworn witness in this case, we presume his testimony is truthful unless Tom can successfully impeach it. But the only claim of Dick's that Tom has to impeach is whether Dick accurately reports what Harry said. None of what proceeds in court under that circumstance could test the truthfulness of Harry's claims, or put them under oath, independent of whether Dick accurately reported them. Harry's claims may be damning to Tom, but Harry may also be lying through his teeth. Because Tom cannot compel Harry to testify under oath in this case, and cannot test Harry's claims via cross-examination, his constitutional rights at trial would be denied if Dick were allowed to present that evidence. Hence hearsay is not permitted as legal testimony.

The critical objection to hearsay does not depend on the legal definition, and in fact addresses a substantially different concern. We are already quite familiar with the limitations of witness testimony. We have addressed many of them. These give rise to a continuum of credibility in critical analysis, in contrast to a qualitative dismissal under the law. We do not necessarily dismiss hearsay evidence categorically, but we are not compelled to consider it convincingly probative. Specifically, the known degradation of evidentiary value over time and distance factors into an evaluation of how probative any given statement is. Memories not only fade over time, they become unconsciously embellished as a natural function of the narrative nature of recollection.

Accounts also degrade over distance, by which I mean the number of times a story is passed from one person to another. Commensurately our ability to assess the validity of the story diminishes rapidly with such distance. In controversial cases, the motive arises to misrepresent the original authority. For example, there are a number of statements attributed to Wernher von Braun by a woman claiming to have been his close associate. None of these allegedly damning statements can be found in primary evidence, and the woman did not publish these attributions until after von Braud died. In almost no cases can these witnesses be sworn or otherwise made to face consequences of lying. Hence we factor that into assessing reliability.

Even the most well-intentioned restatement suffers from rewording an embellishment. The intermediary is sometimes asked questions regarding the original testimony he heard, and we see an overwhelming desire to please the asker by filling in "details" that seem innocuous enough, but which are not part of the original testimony. And even when the intermediary is scrupulously faithful to what he heard, he still interprets and rewords.

Hence hearsay evidence in history is often prudently evaluated at a far lesser level of credibility than primary testimony, just on those general principles. Some of the specific problems I mention above are simply aggravating factors to that general diminishment.

The person being convinced is the one who decides what standard of evidence is going to convince them.

This is what few conspiracy theorists understand or accept. Many of them become accustomed to the echo chambers in which their scenarios are incubated. Submission to a reasonable standard of proof comes as a shock. Specifically, submission to a candid and skeptical audience means you don't get to massage their notions of sufficiency in order to compensate for a weak case that others just rubber-stamped.

Hence in response, most conspiracy theorists find some way to argue for a lower standard of proof -- the one to which they were previously accustomed. Thence the struggle over burden of proof. But the bottom line is that if you want people to believe you, you have to conform to their standard of proof.

That can open another metadebate on whether a person's standards are reasonable, and we've had a little bit of that already. The bottom line is still that if you want to convince someone, you have to conform to his standard of proof. If you later want to argue that he rejected your claims because his standard is inappropriate, that's your prerogative. And that argument also is only as credible as your ability to establish it to your audience's standard of proof. It's turtles all the way down.

If someone tries to prove a point in contravention of other evidence, or in contrast to the null, and the sum total of his proof is reliance upon hearsay testimony, then it's quite reasonable to reject that as insufficiently convincing. Even when the witness is authoritative, we still want additional circumstantial proof of key points. When the witness is not authoritative, the testimony most certainly cannot carry a burden of proof.

 

[HSienzant]

No I don't and you guys wouldn't agree with me if I had a note from God

Not if you simply purported it was a note from God, no.

Or asserted that it was what a federal agent recalled of a hearsay conversation with God three decades after the fact.

Now, if you could prove it was a note from God, that would be a bit different, wouldn't it?

We're not asking for what you believe is true. Or what you wish to assert is true.

We're asking for what you can prove is true.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Robert said he was different than all the rest.

In all fairness I don't recall him making this claim. He looked at the warnings I gave and interpreted them as prejudicial dismissal. He accused me of having rejected his argument before having heard it. Of course that was not what I did. I warned him of arguments that would lead to dismissal if he chose to deploy them. He later did deploy them, of course, but I couldn't have known he would.

But I don't recall him saying he would explicitly avoid or embrace any particular approach in his presentation, so it would be unfair to hold him accountable for any promise to avoid the stereotype, that he did not explicitly make.

 

[Robert Harris]

You're citing a 30-year-later recollection of apparent hearsay, as you later admitted.

And it was noted in a memorandum for the record prepared on 11/23/63 by Sims and Boyd of the DPD that Frank Ellsworth was on the SIXTH FLOOR and present when the rifle was being photographed.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=536&tab=page

I was actually, going post that same link, which confirmed that he was there and involved in the search, but did you know that this obscure document is the ONLY REFERENCE TO ELLSWORTH in all the testimonies in the WC report?

Not only was he never called to testify, but the officers who were with him then, never mentioned his name. It doesn't appear in any of the testimonies.

Nor is there any mention of the name of the other ATF agent who was with him then.

So if Ellsworth also saw a rifle on a lower floor, how come he never mentioned two weapons?

Ellsworth never claimed to have seen a rifle on a lower floor. But we have no idea what he saw, or whether he made any attempt to identify it. He probably didn't witness the actual discovery of that rifle, and had no idea where it was found. He might have been on a different floor at the time.

If he only remembers one - and one hidden amongst boxes is all he mentions -

He didn't mention that.

he remembers the one he was on the sixth floor for, and is just mis-remembering the SIXTH floor as a lower floor.

Wrong again. He never claimed that he saw the rifle on a lower floor. Hank, you are constantly misrepresenting me as well as Ellsworth. Please do your homework so we can discuss this stuff.

Otherwise, you must argue that he saw TWO rifles hidden amongst boxes

No, I musn't. He never claimed to have seen ANY rifle that was hidden. This is getting tiresome, Hank.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots.

You have certainly tried to demonstrate etc., but you remain the only person convinced, as far as I know. The ways in which your demonstration fails have been exhaustively detailed, right here.

And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.

Yet you are the only one convinced. Go figure!

Other issues, like the sniper locations, are also, not absolute certainties. The question of whether Ellsworth told the truth, also falls into that category. I see no probable reason to think that he didn't.[...]

Which just seems very strange.

Will it help if I tell you another 12 times, that I cannot prove it is true? Coming from a federal agent, it is obviously likely, however.

Aha! Well, of course!
But I could have sworn you just said a minute ago that federal agents can't be trusted...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ellsworth never claimed to have seen a rifle on a lower floor. But we have no idea what he saw, or whether he made any attempt to identify it. He probably didn't witness the actual discovery of that rifle, and had no idea where it was found. He might have been on a different floor at the time.

Guess those 'most important case of his life' super-powers were pretty low key then...

 

[Belz...]

I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots.

You have done no such thing. You sure have spent a lot of virtual ink claiming to have done so, however.

And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.

Again, you set yourself up to be the only reasonable person here. Of course you do, since you have convinced no one.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.

A "probability that shots were fired at...313"...?!
It's a fact that a bullet pierced the president's skull between frames 312 and 313. It's already got 100 percent probability. We didn't need you to demonstrate that, thanks.

 

[Robert Harris]

In all fairness I don't recall him making this claim.

If I didn't, I will do so now. I am VASTLY different from 99% of other conspiracy advocates. Not only do I contradict them on countless issues, like the guilt of Oswald, the SBT, the fact that a the 313 shot came from the rear, and the improbability of a shot from the Knoll, but I post verifiable, empirical evidence to prove my case, which also makes me vastly different from lone nut advocates.

He looked at the warnings I gave and interpreted them as prejudicial dismissal. He accused me of having rejected his argument before having heard it. Of course that was not what I did.

Bull poop!!

You predicted what I would say and then attacked your false predictions. Your little lecture was among the most ludicrous and pompous articles I have ever seen posted in a JFK forum.

You assumed that I would argue that Oswald was innocent.

You assumed that my case would be weak and asserted that there is evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, which of course, does not exist.

You also made the totally illogical claim that my analysis would be rejected if I failed to present a list of names of whodunnit. If I can prove, as I did, that shots were fired that were inconsistent with Oswald's rifle, the conspiracy debate ends, whether I presented a hundred suspects or none.

Your most laughable proclamation was that your long discredited, minority theory, was some kind of "conventional narrative", which relieves you of the burden of defending it. Of course, that was nonsense. You don't refuse to defend your position because of some phony rule you concocted, you refuse to defend it because you can't.

Isn't that why you consistently refuse to answer critical questions and make up ridiculous excuses for you evasions?

You did make one very profound and accurate statement however.

"As skeptics, we believe that the best theory is that which explains the most observations"

Sadly though, you refuse to discuss those "observations" or even address questions related to them. And u sure as hell don't dodge them because you think they are part of a "game". You dodge them because you don't like the answers.

You're spooling up to make exactly the same kind of argument every conspiracy theorist attempts, and which is entirely unconvincing. Here's why it's unconvincing, and why this thread persists for so long going over the same topics. Do not make the same mistakes as your many predecessors.

First, if you have no alternative theory as to who killed Kennedy, you are likely to be dismissed outright. This is a board (and thread) populated largely by skeptics. As skeptics, we believe that the best theory is that which explains the most observations while requiring the fewest loose ends or assumptions. You must have a competing theory, and be willing to defend it. Simply pretending to exonerate Oswald based on eroding faith in the various affirmative cases made against him is not logically valid or rhetorically persuasive if you have no alternative.

Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general, in order to distract from his own generally weak case. The evidence is easily available and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter of public knowledge. As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of proof. Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case.

Third, your burden of proof is exactly that which you propose for the conventional narrative. We are well attuned to the "reasonable doubt" method of attempting to style the debate as a mock criminal trial, and the various "just asking questions" methods of weaseling out of any intellectual responsibility. Do not try to put some double standard into play. Do not try to propose an absurdly low standard of proof for your own claims.

Fourth, don't assume the discussion began anew the moment you showed up. This is the third split of a thread in which most of us have participated for several years. If you want to know what we think, read the thread. The first question on the table is not your demand for others to mount a case against Oswald. As a newcomer, it is your duty to inform yourself of the state of the discussion to date and to behave accordingly.

I believe the most parsimonious interpretation of the consilience of evidence is that Oswald acted alone. The reason I believe that is because I have surveyed the evidence (what evidence?) and can find no more compelling case for any other individual. I persist in this belief because I have been presented with numerous alternative arguments, all of which I have found especially disingenuous and unconvincing for reasons including those named above.

 

[Robert Harris]

Guess those 'most important case of his life' super-powers were pretty low key then...

Your argument is ridiculously illogical.

 

[Belz...]

If I didn't, I will do so now. I am VASTLY different from 99% of other conspiracy advocates.

And yet you commited exactly the errors Jay predicted from experience right at the beginning of your stay here.

Your little lecture was among the most ludicrous and pompous articles I have ever seen posted in a JFK forum.

Speaking of pompousness, aren't you the one claiming to have blown open one of the most famous historical events of the 20th century, something that all else have failed to do, and that experts are unable to see ?

Give me a break.