Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[OKBob]

"Sarcasm" is a seven letter word beginning with "S".

Jebus.

Maybe. And maybe you know E better than I do. But some of his posts seem authentically woo to me, so maybe he bats for both teams. In any case, Poe's Law. If he can pass for the wallpaper variety of CT, then he's part of the problem, not the solution. By the way, sarcasm does not begin with "s." I'm just being sarcastic.

 

[Steve]

Maybe. And maybe you know E better than I do. But some of his posts seem authentically woo to me, so maybe he bats for both teams. In any case, Poe's Law. If he can pass for the wallpaper variety of CT, then he's part of the problem, not the solution. By the way, sarcasm does not begin with "s." I'm just being sarcastic.

Doesn't matter who knows who. The post was definitely sarcasm. And he is definitely better at it than you.

 

[OKBob]

Doesn't matter who knows who. The post was definitely sarcasm. And he is definitely better at it than you.

Thanks, Steve. I'll work on my sarcasm skills, because I definitely don't want to be thought lacking in that area.

 

[HSienzant]

Maybe. And maybe you know E better than I do. But some of his posts seem authentically woo to me, so maybe he bats for both teams. In any case, Poe's Law. If he can pass for the wallpaper variety of CT, then he's part of the problem, not the solution. By the way, sarcasm does not begin with "s." I'm just being sarcastic.

I'm with abaddon on this one. I took it as pointed humor making a dig at MicahJava's arguments for the money and general CT nonsense about handlers... which I think you posted on a day or two back, and how it removes all responsibility from Oswald for the deed, since he was only 'following orders' in any case.

This one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11947131&postcount=1089

Hank

 

[OKBob]

I'm with abaddon on this one. I took it as pointed humor making a dig at MicahJava's arguments for the money and general CT nonsense about handlers... which I think you posted on a day or two back, and how it removes all responsibility from Oswald for the deed, since he was only 'following orders' in any case.

Hank

Okay. I'm persuaded. But, you know, if one goes to alt.assassination.jfk and reads, for example, the recent theorizing of Ralph Cinque (Ruby's shooting of Oswald was staged and Oswald was actually executed offstage), it's hard to see how E has heightened the substance or the rhetoric of CT to signal sarcasm. In any case, apologies to E if I erroneously took him for the real McCoy woo.

 

[HSienzant]

Good point. The CT expectation you identify is a good example of what has been called, on this list, the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy. It might be called the "I'm the New Sheriff in Town" fallacy. Essentially, it imposes on a set of facts a heightened rule or normative expectation that is arbitrarily summoned and not grounded in recognized legal, historiographical, or common-sense standards. It is fallacious for at least two reasons. On the one hand, it begs the question of research methodology; on the other, it sets up a straw-man standard of performance that few humans acting within controlled or uncontrolled chaos could ever satisfy. [emphasis added]

The one specific example I touched on in the last few weeks about unrealistic expectations of performance is Sylvia Meagher's argument that if the sniper's nest window was pointed out to the police within minutes by Brennan (and others), it is bizarre that it took the police so long to get to that window and find the shells (about 40 minutes after the assassination).

I found the argument in question (ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, Sylvia Meagher, pages 9-10):
Inconsistent and Baffling Reactions
This is a case in which appearances constantly and repeatedly belie the "facts" asserted by the Warren Commission. The Commission insists that all the shots came from the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository, yet the testimony and photographs show that after the shooting there was a mass surge of police and spectators to the grassy knoll and the railroad yards, and that for some five or ten minutes no attention was paid to the Book Depository. The building had not been effectively sealed as late as 12:50 p.m. (if it was ever sealed at all), although according to the Warren Report a number of eyewitnesses told the police immediately that they had seen a rifle, or a man with a rifle, in the sixth floor window. No one rushed to that window; no one even rushed to the sixth floor.

It was not until 1:12 p.m. that signs of a sniper's nest were noticed for the first time, by a sheriff's deputy—not because a witness had alerted him but because he was in the course of a floor-by-floor search of the whole building.

The belated and accidental discovery of the sniper's nest presented a self-evident and signal problem: Why did the police ignore eyewitness reports of a rifle in the sixth-floor window? Why didn't they send a search party immediately to the sixth floor to trap or intercept the sniper? That elementary question was not posed by the Warren Commission to the police witnesses who received the eyewitness reports or who organized the floor-by-floor search of the building. The Warren Report ignores the very existence of this pivotal and potentially disruptive question.

I had to point out her argument was nonsense, that the police had to proceed under the assumption that the assassin was still in the building, and he could be on any floor and around any corner. As time went on, and more floors were examined and the assassin not found, it became more and more apparent that the assassin had abandoned his rifle in the building and fled the building.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Okay. I'm persuaded. But, you know, if one goes to alt.assassination.jfk and reads, for example, the recent theorizing of Ralph Cinque (Ruby's shooting of Oswald was staged and Oswald was actually executed offstage), it's hard to see how E has heightened the substance or the rhetoric of CT to signal sarcasm. In any case, apologies to E if I erroneously took him for the real McCoy woo.

It's pretty much impossible to top Ralph Cinque's conspiracy gig, so that may be a poor comparison. That man is way out there. I debated him on the Amazon discussion forums for a year or more, he went through at least three different names on that forum as he kept getting banned for violations of the forum's discussion rules. Even most reasonably rational conspiracy theorists try to stay away from anything Cinque touches. His arguments are generally circular and assume his opinion is all that is necessary to support his conclusion. I doubt if anything Ralph says to justify his conclusions would surprise me anymore - he never saw a photo he thought was NOT altered. He may be a poor control for conspiracy woo. Nobody can top Ralph, but Jim Fetzer comes close.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

I had to point out that the police had to proceed under the assumption that the assassin was still in the building, and he could be on any floor and around any corner. As time went on, and more floors were examined and the assassin not found, it became more and more apparent that the assassin had abandoned his rifle in the building and fled the building.

Yes, the passage you quote from SM is a great example of "If I Ran the Zoo," or, here, begged investigative methodology. Also, it's full of begged questions and erroneous, misleading assertions. For example, it is not true that "no attention was paid to the Book Depository" in the minutes after the shooting. Oswald's encounter with a police officer with a drawn weapon on the second floor refutes that claim. SM seems to suggest--zoo-runningly--that law enforcement should have rushed immediately to the sixth floor because that's where they should have expected to find, according to eyewitness reports, a sniper and/or his weapon. But, as you suggest, Hank, the more cautious, rational approach would be to search carefully from the ground floor up, because the police were looking for a dangerous, armed individual who might (as indeed Oswald, though unarmed, did) flee from the sniper's nest to lower floors.

Note also the inflammatory rhetoric of SM's prose. "Constantly and repeatedly"; the Warren Commission "insists"; "belated and accidental discovery"; "pivotal and potentially disruptive." This language arraigns both the DPD and the Warren Commission on the basis of rhetorical passion, not demonstrable fact. This type of heightened, febrile rhetoric, repeated incessantly for 54 years, has helped perpetuate popular assumptions that are hard to dispel.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, the passage you quote from SM is a great example of "If I Ran the Zoo," or, here, begged investigative methodology. Also, it's full of begged questions and erroneous, misleading assertions. For example, it is not true that "no attention was paid to the Book Depository" in the minutes after the shooting. Oswald's encounter with a police officer with a drawn weapon on the second floor refutes that claim. SM seems to suggest--zoo-runningly--that law enforcement should have rushed immediately to the sixth floor because that's where they should have expected to find, according to eyewitness reports, a sniper and/or his weapon. But, as you suggest, Hank, the more cautious, rational approach would be to search carefully from the ground floor up, because the police were looking for a dangerous, armed individual who might (as indeed Oswald, though unarmed, did) flee from the sniper's nest to lower floors.

Note also the inflammatory rhetoric of SM's prose. "Constantly and repeatedly"; the Warren Commission "insists"; "belated and accidental discovery"; "pivotal and potentially disruptive." The rhetoric, without factual support, arraigns both the DPD and the Warren Commission. This type of heightened, febrile rhetoric, repeated incessantly for 54 years, has helped perpetuate popular assumptions that are hard to dispel.

Absolutely. But Ralph Cinque is doing his best to dispel them by showing by example that conspiracy theorists are pretty much unhinged.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

It's pretty much impossible to top Ralph Cinque's conspiracy gig, so that may be a poor comparison.

Ralph and Robert Harris (late of this list) share a fatal foundational flaw. They both believe, unshakeably, that they have the expertise to determine, without any special knowledge or training, that they can see things in photographs and films that no one else has noticed. Ralph believes that his keen, chivalric eye can spot all manner of photographic anomalies that prove fakery and therefore conspiracy. Robert claims to be able to detect, in the Zapruder film, human startle reactions that prove additional, conspiratorial gunshots. The fundamental problem for both is that they don't think they have to be specially qualified to perform these analyses. This is sometimes related to the larger "common-sense" fallacy in CT: "I'm just reporting what anyone can see if they'll just open their mind and eyes."

 

[abaddon]

Thanks, Steve. I'll work on my sarcasm skills, because I definitely don't want to be thought lacking in that area.

OK, you get a pass. Be aware that there are many old hands at this (amongst whom I do not place myself). A certain subtle mockery creeps in to the point that one cannot tell which posts are serious or which posts are humour/mockery/satire.

That happens. Were it not clear, I was once again lampooning the cranks and their crankery. You thought I was serious. That can happen too. It is no fault of yours. All crankery devolves to the point where one cannot tell the difference between agreement, critique and outright disagreement.

Such are the intertubes. And the webernets.

 

[OKBob]

OK, you get a pass. Be aware that there are many old hands at this (amongst whom I do not place myself). A certain subtle mockery creeps in to the point that one cannot tell which posts are serious or which posts are humour/mockery/satire.

That happens. Were it not clear, I was once again lampooning the cranks and their crankery. You thought I was serious. That can happen too. It is no fault of yours. All crankery devolves to the point where one cannot tell the difference between agreement, critique and outright disagreement.

Such are the intertubes. And the webernets.

Thanks, abaddon. No problem. And no sarcasm here.

 

[Elagabalus]

I'm sorry, these days, I can't take seriously any conspiracy theory that does not include a Lampchop puppet (see my post above).

Wait a minute! Lampchop! Lampchopping. Lampchoppin' in the vulgar. choppin.

Chopin!!!!***

My god, you've blown this case wide open!

"There is no E in Egypt!"

And "Rubinstein" is *********** "Rubinstein"!!!!

 

[bknight]

Wait a minute! Lampchop! Lampchopping. Lampchoppin' in the vulgar. choppin.

Chopin!!!!***

My god, you've blown this case wide open!

"There is no E in Egypt!"

And "Rubinstein" is *********** "Rubinstein"!!!!

And denial is not a river in Egypt!

 

[Axxman300]

The one specific example I touched on in the last few weeks about unrealistic expectations of performance is Sylvia Meagher's argument that if the sniper's nest window was pointed out to the police within minutes by Brennan (and others), it is bizarre that it took the police so long to get to that window and find the shells (about 40 minutes after the assassination).


I had to point out her argument was nonsense, that the police had to proceed under the assumption that the assassin was still in the building, and he could be on any floor and around any corner. As time went on, and more floors were examined and the assassin not found, it became more and more apparent that the assassin had abandoned his rifle in the building and fled the building.

Hank

The other aspect to be considered is that cops on the ground in Dealey Plaza were being directed everywhere by people who thought they saw gunmen in various places (picket fence, storm drain, etc). The film footage shows DPD officers running everywhere to check, so it's not like the area wasn't searched prior to turning the focus on the TSBD. And while the police were searching inside, the officers outside began to clear the area of civilians while additional searches were underway.

Considering it was 1963, the DPD did a pretty good job for the mountainous task that dropped into their lap that day. Too bad Tippet paid for being a patient cop with his life, but that was his style. Today the average patrol officer would switch into thread mode after a similar event. In a perfect world, Tippet kills Oswald before the public gets a look at him, and makes his obvious guilt easier to swallow for most people.

 

[Axxman300]

Wait a minute! Lampchop! Lampchopping. Lampchoppin' in the vulgar. choppin.

Chopin!!!!***

My god, you've blown this case wide open!

"There is no E in Egypt!"

And "Rubinstein" is *********** "Rubinstein"!!!!

Fact: When played backward, Fantaisie Impromptu gives you all of the Illuminati's bank routing numbers, and the override codes for the keypad locks at Area 51.

And by "Fact" I mean maybe...

 

[Imhotep]

Some more rampant speculation

On 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm, Kennedy was shot. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was reported and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.

If you estimated someone's weight, would you use a number like 165 or round it? Also, Oswald was 5'9 and 140 pounds. Also curious is that the height and weight were the only part of this description, no clothing was mentioned. Finally I should add, how do you estimate someone's height when you see them (partially) through a window?

Memo:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4224&relPageId=2

 

[OKBob]

If you estimated someone's weight, would you use a number like 165 or round it? Also, Oswald was 5'9 and 140 pounds. Also curious is that the height and weight were the only part of this description, no clothing was mentioned. Finally I should add, how do you estimate someone's height when you see them (partially) through a window?

If I ran the zoo, everyone would estimate other persons' weight in multiples of ten, especially when they glimpsed them partially through a window.

 

[Imhotep]

If I ran the zoo, everyone would estimate other persons' weight in multiples of ten, especially when they glimpsed them partially through a window.

Is this a Dr. Seuss reference?

 

[OKBob]

Is this a Dr. Seuss reference?

Only incidentally. It's chiefly a reference to a logical fallacy that has often been discussed in this thread and related threads.