Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Tomtomkent]

So, for a change of pace. Given no conspiracy theory has convinced us LHO did not act alone, which conspiracy theory has come closest to convincing you? For those who used to believe in theories, which had you convinced until you looked again at the evidence?

I know that it has been mentioned before that how much influence the Cuban groups had on LHO choosing to shoot is unknown, and can't be proven, even if we make educated guesses.

For what it was worth, there was a time I thought the 'Mac Wallace' fingerprint was 'proof' of a conspiracy, before I began to understand how flimsy that evidence was, and that there were explanations other than 'another shooter' for the vice presidents personal 'agent' to be on site, should the fingerprint have been genuine. I think this has been mentioned before...

 

[vtbub]

So, for a change of pace. Given no conspiracy theory has convinced us LHO did not act alone, which conspiracy theory has come closest to convincing you? For those who used to believe in theories, which had you convinced until you looked again at the evidence?

I know that it has been mentioned before that how much influence the Cuban groups had on LHO choosing to shoot is unknown, and can't be proven, even if we make educated guesses.

For what it was worth, there was a time I thought the 'Mac Wallace' fingerprint was 'proof' of a conspiracy, before I began to understand how flimsy that evidence was, and that there were explanations other than 'another shooter' for the vice presidents personal 'agent' to be on site, should the fingerprint have been genuine. I think this has been mentioned before...

If there is any conspiracy here, I'm with you on the Cuban angle.

The longer we go without anyone seriously leaking, the harder it becomes for me to think even that's possible.

Ya think Jack Ruby regrets sparing Jackie another trip to Texas still?

 

[Hans]

Someone at the Cuban mission might have made a suggestion, serious or not that may have sparked LHO interest - of course no evidence of such.

 

[Axxman300]

So, for a change of pace. Given no conspiracy theory has convinced us LHO did not act alone, which conspiracy theory has come closest to convincing you? For those who used to believe in theories, which had you convinced until you looked again at the evidence?

I know that it has been mentioned before that how much influence the Cuban groups had on LHO choosing to shoot is unknown, and can't be proven, even if we make educated guesses.

For what it was worth, there was a time I thought the 'Mac Wallace' fingerprint was 'proof' of a conspiracy, before I began to understand how flimsy that evidence was, and that there were explanations other than 'another shooter' for the vice presidents personal 'agent' to be on site, should the fingerprint have been genuine. I think this has been mentioned before...

The Cubans, Operation Mongoose - Cubans.

Like I said earlier, there is a big enough gray area there build a conspiracy, and some have. The problem is they always take it too far, Jim Garrison is a prime example of this. He took some threads and tried to weave a case against men who may have been guilty of knowing LHO, but only by six-degrees of separation.

If someone had some credible evidence that someone knew Oswald was going to take a shot at the President I'd look at it...haven't seen any yet.

 

[Hans]

The Cubans, Operation Mongoose - Cubans.

Like I said earlier, there is a big enough gray area there build a conspiracy, and some have. The problem is they always take it too far, Jim Garrison is a prime example of this. He took some threads and tried to weave a case against men who may have been guilty of knowing LHO, but only by six-degrees of separation.

If someone had some credible evidence that someone knew Oswald was going to take a shot at the President I'd look at it...haven't seen any yet.

If there was some one/others they would be dead or awful old by now....

 

[JayUtah]

Like I said earlier, there is a big enough gray area there build a conspiracy, and some have.

Every happenstance occurrence has gray areas, because what we can observe in the aftermath doesn't correspond one-to-one with some particular causal chain we want to uncover. We won't be able to observe enough to conclusively rule in or out some particular causation. And conversely, we will be able to see evidence of many more unrelated causations at work. The goal for an investigator is to be able to develop enough skill via experience to sift among that field of evidence and determine relevance. Hence what I wrote above: all hypothesizers use the same body of evidence, but they interpret it, as a whole, differently and thereby arrive at different conclusions.

Not all would-be investigators are good at it. Thus the incessant posturing in the conspiracy community. Specifically, "You skeptics must prove your hypothesis to the point where it excludes the possibility of my hypothesis." It's a call for one side to eliminate all gray, usually wrapped in the guise of demanding fair treatment or leveling the playing field. Hence it's really a grand shift of the burden of proof, so that the armchair investigator doesn't have to risk embarrassing himself.

The unspoken premise to that approach is that if there's any gray, then how could one possibly believe the conventional narrative? And then the subsequent game play is all about avoiding how much gray area, comparatively speaking, is in the conspiracy theory. Whatever the conspiracy theory is, it's always poised to take care of just that one little patch of gray over the corner. It's never able to paint the whole field either black or white. The proponent generally wants to keep your focus on the one little patch of gray he believes he can clarify.

The problem is they always take it too far...

Or not far enough. Garrison, to be sure, took it too far and subjected it to the full rigor of a court trial. They found his gray areas, in spades. Harris takes it too far too, in that he's fleshed his hypothesis out to a level of detail that would almost be testable if it weren't almost entirely based on speculation, specious reasoning, and subjective opinion, thereby making it qualitatively untestable.

Most don't. They don't even believe in giving you something whose ambiguity can be measured. Instead they think their task ended the moment they saw gray in something you said sounds credible to you.

 

[Hans]

Not all would-be investigators are good at it. Thus the incessant posturing in the conspiracy community. Specifically, "You skeptics must prove your hypothesis to the point where it excludes the possibility of my hypothesis." It's a call for one side to eliminate all gray, usually wrapped in the guise of demanding fair treatment or leveling the playing field. Hence it's really a grand shift of the burden of proof, so that the armchair investigator doesn't have to risk embarrassing himself.

The unspoken premise to that approach is that if there's any gray, then how could one possibly believe the conventional narrative? And then the subsequent game play is all about avoiding how much gray area, comparatively speaking, is in the conspiracy theory. Whatever the conspiracy theory is, it's always poised to take care of just that one little patch of gray over the corner. It's never able to paint the whole field either black or white. The proponent generally wants to keep your focus on the one little patch of gray he believes he can clarify.

Jay does the above have a specific name or descriptive term associated with it?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay does the above have a specific name or descriptive term associated with it?

Denial of the Inductive Leap occurs when the presence of any gray areas in an inductive line of reasoning is said to refute it categorically. This is why the most stringent legal standard of proof is reasonable doubt. We can find examples of unreasonable doubt, which tends to wander down solipsist paths of reasoning. Nearly every whit of conspiracy-theorist argumentation takes place within the inductive gap of the conventional story. That's why they have to pre-eliminate it, so that the ponderous inductive case in favor of the conventional narrative doesn't constantly dwarf the gap. Harris' demand that his critics show affirmative proof of Oswald as the only shooter equates to a demand to eliminate the inductive gap altogether.

The Fallacy of Limited Scope is committed when an explanation can explain only narrow facets of evidence, such as one particular outlying element, without being able to explain the preponderance of evidence. Harris' presumption to be able to infer gunshots reliably from one piece of film evidence would constitute this fallacy.

Both concepts are subsumed in Occam's Razor which, in its canonical formulation, says that if two hypotheses predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions is preferred.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's a pity you can't have some of the CTists we've had here in one of your classes. We can take solace in the fact that they end up getting schooled anyway.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a pity you can't have some of the CTists we've had here in one of your classes.

They participated in absentia as case studies. [ETA: Well, not these, but similar.]

 

[Hans]

.

Thanks Jay The Fallacy of Limited Scope is what I was thinking off

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't prefer to cite Harris' "startle" claim as a textbook example of Limited Scope. In the field, arguments rarely exhibit only one fallacy, and rarely any with didactic clarity.

Limited Scope is commonly misapplied in a few ways. You can't, for example, claim Limited Scope when the argument simply exhibits an inductive gap. "Your hypothesis doesn't explain this niggling little detail, so its scope is hopelessly limited." In the pure formulation, a Limited Scope explanation is so comically limited that it almost qualifies as a circular argument. "Children today are bratty because they have a sense of entitlement."

You can think of a smooth continuum between nearly-circular and merely unparsimonious. Limited Scope arguments live near the circular-argument end. Even a feeble attempt to expand the scope appropriately can shift an argument from Limited Scope to Unparsimonious. The difference is often in the proponent's evident understanding of what scope should apply.

Qualitatively, such a refutation can also fail for pertinence. "The single-bullet theory for Connally's and Kennedy's wounds doesn't explain why Oswald was so disaffected in the Soviet Union." Or more to the point (but off-topic), "Your hydraulic-failure scenario for the Klutzair 200 crash doesn't explain how two passengers managed to board with forged passports." The unexplained points may be more than just small details, but they have to rationally relate to the specific effects being explained in order to qualify as Limited Scope.

 

[Axxman300]

Or not far enough. Garrison, to be sure, took it too far and subjected it to the full rigor of a court trial. They found his gray areas, in spades. Harris takes it too far too, in that he's fleshed his hypothesis out to a level of detail that would almost be testable if it weren't almost entirely based on speculation, specious reasoning, and subjective opinion, thereby making it qualitatively untestable.

Most don't. They don't even believe in giving you something whose ambiguity can be measured. Instead they think their task ended the moment they saw gray in something you said sounds credible to you.

Agree 100%.

Approaching Harris from a former JFK CT perspective he tries to marry an abstract fact (people being startled by loud noises universally) and another abstract data point (the volume of a MC being fired) to base a hypothesis on using the silent Zapruder film. His gray area is the discrepancy of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza as to what they heard, and then cherry-picks the desired results to cite and supporting evidence.

In his case the gray area came from the lack of reliable sound recording of the incident and a variety of conflicting testimony and personal accounts of how many shots were heard.

In the old days I might have bought into that. But knowing that the location has a notorious echo means that absent new film footage with sound, any thesis where sonic evidence is the basis is useless. He then compounds his problem by suggesting there was a silenced rifle used, which from a logistical standpoint would have been a nightmare in 1963. I asked him to at least suggest a weapon that could be silenced and still do the damage done to the victims in the limo. Instead of at least citing the few suppressed weapons in a spaghetti against the wall approach, he blew the question off, and that is where his thesis dies.

Worse, Harris goes on to suggest the Mafia was behind it, and wanders into the Mauser Myth. Both have been debunked thoroughly.

For fun I asked him to cite all the times the Mafia used a long rifle to rub someone out, and he could not. To Harris the Mob is a gray area to shroud his thesis with enough What Ifs to keep it afloat. To any reasonable researcher, or casual reader of true-crime books the Mafia is not a gray area. They have a modus operandi, they have a track record, they have mountains of criminal records across multiple continents. That is data that can be collated. There are names, dates, and testimony that give the interested world a clear picture of how the Mafia operated in 1963.

The murder of JFK was not in their playbook.
Using a patsy was not in their playbook.
Hiring LHO to shoot JFK would have been ridiculous, and having him "in on the plot" would have been an act of unprecedented stupidity.

These conclusions are mine, but I think they stand up. The Mafia is not the gray area it once was, and any legitimate researcher into the JFK assassination would learn this quickly.

Honestly, when all of the relevant documents of the assassination, the history of the CIA's programs to kill Castro, Cuban intelligence history in the US and Mexico, and remaining FBI files on Mafia figures are accessible I don't see the bottom line for November 22, 1963 changing. Oswald killed Kennedy...by his lonesome.

Sorry to ramble.

 

[JayUtah]

[Harris] tries to marry an abstract fact (people being startled by loud noises universally) and another abstract data point (the volume of a MC being fired) to base a hypothesis on using the silent Zapruder film. His gray area is the discrepancy of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza as to what they heard, and then cherry-picks the desired results to cite and supporting evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is always a gray area, which is why it's not favorably regarded in forensic investigations. It's the staple of court trials for historical reasons, but in forensic circles we find it's much easier to develop other kinds of evidence.

There are gray areas that arise normally in the evidence, and then there are reasonably white areas sullied by unscrupulous authors trying to fool a gullible lay public. We've discussed this, for example, in the context of how authors misrepresent the environs of Dealey Plaza. Similarly, few of the lay public are firefighters or structural engineers, hence 9/11 conspiracy theories. And few of the lay public know how to build and operate a spacecraft, hence Apollo conspiracy theories.

And for this reason, conspiracy authors scrupulous avoid any of the well-established ways to test theories such as theirs, or to submit them to knowledgeable experts. That avoidance often takes the form of accusing the established experts of bias. That way they can excuse themselves from, say, taking their "incriminating" evidence to the FBI. If the FBI ignores them, they can say that's evidence of bias. Similarly if the FBI looks and says, "There's nothing here we can use," it's also bias.

In the fallacy parade, we have Misappropriation of Authority, Hasty Generalization, Incomplete Evidence, and Stacking the Deck.

He then compounds his problem by suggesting there was a silenced rifle used...

Ad Hoc Rescue.

For fun I asked him to cite all the times the Mafia used a long rifle to rub someone out, and he could not.

Ad Hoc Revision, by claiming it wasn't a "typical" Mafia hit.

They [the Mafia] have a modus operandi, they have a track record, they have mountains of criminal records across multiple continents.

And in my personal experience they have wives, children, and businesses, drive Fiats, and are not the Hollywoodesque caricature that Harris insinuates. I asked him where he got his information on organized crime, and he dodged the question.

These conclusions are mine, but I think they stand up.

They're mine as well, and I think they're far more accurate. Harris' characterization of mafiosi and Mafia methods reminds me of the villains from Dick Tracy comics.

 

[Belz...]

There are gray areas that arise normally in the evidence, and then there are reasonably white areas sullied by unscrupulous authors trying to fool a gullible lay public. We've discussed this, for example, in the context of how authors misrepresent the environs of Dealey Plaza. Similarly, few of the lay public are firefighters or structural engineers, hence 9/11 conspiracy theories. And few of the lay public know how to build and operate a spacecraft, hence Apollo conspiracy theories.

Though for the latter, all you need is to ever have done photography.

 

[abaddon]

There are gray areas that arise normally in the evidence, and then there are reasonably white areas sullied by unscrupulous authors trying to fool a gullible lay public. We've discussed this, for example, in the context of how authors misrepresent the environs of Dealey Plaza. Similarly, few of the lay public are firefighters or structural engineers, hence 9/11 conspiracy theories. And few of the lay public know how to build and operate a spacecraft, hence Apollo conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure I buy that. I am not a structural engineer or a firefighter, yet I can discern 911 crap when I see it. I do not nor ever have designed spacecraft, yet I can discern Apollo hoax crap when I see it. I have never stood in Dealy Plaza, yet my 3d spatial reasoning is sound enough to realise the baloney hoaxies try to pull.

One might claim that since I am a credentialed engineer that perhaps I am transferring expertise from one field to another, but that would simply be untrue, since I was cognisant of all of this from my teen years before I ever had a formal engineering education. Well, barring 911 obviously. On that day, I and a colleague left a sales meeting with a customer and caught it live in the car.

My point is that basic education should by rights equip everyone with the tools to make a realistic assessment of whatever claim regardless of layman status, and if it does not do so there is something very wrong. Critical thinking, ability to research and general logical thought really ought to be right up there alongside literacy and numeracy as basic life skills.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure I buy that. I am not [various experts]...

True enough; in those fields and perhaps others you could be considered a layman. But you're not a gullible layman. Conspiracy theorists aim their rhetoric at the lay public, to be sure, but specifically at the gullible segment of the lay public that they suspect will be most easily ensnared. The key to doing that is to pretend to teach the gullible layman something.

"Expert marksmen have tried, and can't shoot rifles that fast."
"People in the film behave like that because they're reacting to gunshots."
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams."
"The Apollo spacecraft weren't shielded against radiation."

The gullible layman's answer to all that is, "Gee, I had no idea! Tell me more."

My point is that basic education should by rights equip everyone with the tools to make a realistic assessment of whatever claim regardless of layman status, and if it does not do so there is something very wrong. Critical thinking, ability to research and general logical thought really ought to be right up there alongside literacy and numeracy as basic life skills.

I thoroughly agree. I see two factors that impede that laudable wish. The first is the neurochemical payoff that comes from one's belief that he knows a secret. The second is the growing trend in America experience that sees critical thinking as an accursed and evil practice designed to deny your faith in God.

 

[abaddon]

True enough; in those fields and perhaps others you could be considered a layman. But you're not a gullible layman. Conspiracy theorists aim their rhetoric at the lay public, to be sure, but specifically at the gullible segment of the lay public that they suspect will be most easily ensnared. The key to doing that is to pretend to teach the gullible layman something.

"Expert marksmen have tried, and can't shoot rifles that fast."
"People in the film behave like that because they're reacting to gunshots."
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams."
"The Apollo spacecraft weren't shielded against radiation."

The gullible layman's answer to all that is, "Gee, I had no idea! Tell me more."

The gullible layman is only gullible because the education system has failed.

I thoroughly agree. I see two factors that impede that laudable wish. The first is the neurochemical payoff that comes from one's belief that he knows a secret. The second is the growing trend in America experience that sees critical thinking as an accursed and evil practice designed to deny your faith in God.

Speaking from the outside, I do find the attempt to insert religion into science education a disturbing trend. I find the ongoing global trend to lower standards so that everyone is a pass disturbing (it isn't just America. Lower the bar and everyone can leap it). People need to realise that failing in a particular topic is simply identifying that this area of endeavour is not for you.

To give a concrete example, an aquaintence of mine is a carpenter. He does things with wood which I would never even attempt in my wildest dreams. He left school at 13 with a bare minimum of formal education. Were one to ask him to, say, design a Yagi, he would be utterly at a loss. Were he to ask me to build a wardrobe, I would be at a loss. There is no value judgment. I am no better than he, nor is he better than I. We simply have differing skillsets.

Despite that we have common ground. We are both blokes. He can tell me why my attempt at a shelf is borked, I can tune his TV correctly and all is well with the world.

In contrast, the CT proponent wants to tell you how to tune your shelf and spirit level your TV. And insists they are correct while the universe is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Speaking from the outside, I do find the attempt to insert religion into science education a disturbing trend.

I was thinking about that just a few minutes ago, actually, but because of a totally different thread. We have an annoying tendency these days to force an idea of sameness on everybody. Everybody is special, no one should fail, no one should feel bad. So we lower standards, apparently not aware that we're making the more competent people less qualified in the process.

 

[JayUtah]

The gullible layman is only gullible because the education system has failed.

I can't really argue with that.

In contrast, the CT proponent wants to tell you how to tune your shelf and spirit level your TV. And insists they are correct while the universe is wrong.

...and calls you names for questioning his methods.