• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Oh, so with the source, that means you buy it? Course not. The source is a quoted from him directly on p. 386 of 'Oswald Talked" by the LaFontaines.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand the importance of sources. It it not so I or anyone else will "buy" something, it is so people can check the reliability of what you're saying and to see if your source is itself reliable.

Since most people don't have a library of conspiracy books as you seem to have, an internet link would be preferable. Thanks anyway, though. I'll see if I can find out something about that book by the LaFontaines.

And for those of you who are not Robert Prey:

Why is it that when conspiracy mongers come to forums like this it is the skeptics who must do the heavy lifting for them as far as checking out the assertions they make and looking up those pesky sources?
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
And for those of you who are not Robert Prey:

Why is it that when conspiracy mongers come to forums like this it is the skeptics who must do the heavy lifting for them as far as checking out the assertions they make and looking up those pesky sources?
Click to expand...

Because the conspiracy theorists are not looking for knowledge, but for confirmation of what they insist must be true. Any source that appears, even superficially, to confirm the conspiracy theory must be considered unimpeachable; any source that conflicts with it is either worthless or deliberately fabricated. Robert Prey's attitude to whether the Oswald back yard photos are faked is a case in point; he appeals to the authority of 'his' experts, invokes the special pleading fallacy in order to reject the authority of any experts who disagree, and, when the actual arguments for fakery are demonstrated to be fallacious, withdraws rather than assimilating the new information. If he actually researched his background material, it might not agree with his conclusions; since he is not prepared to change his conclusions, why bother?

Dave
 
Definition of the crank.... or doofus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
.
Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because the conspiracy theorists are not looking for knowledge, but for confirmation of what they insist must be true. Any source that appears, even superficially, to confirm the conspiracy theory must be considered unimpeachable; any source that conflicts with it is either worthless or deliberately fabricated. Robert Prey's attitude to whether the Oswald back yard photos are faked is a case in point; he appeals to the authority of 'his' experts, invokes the special pleading fallacy in order to reject the authority of any experts who disagree, and, when the actual arguments for fakery are demonstrated to be fallacious, withdraws rather than assimilating the new information. If he actually researched his background material, it might not agree with his conclusions; since he is not prepared to change his conclusions, why bother?
Click to expand...

I have never seen a more pronounced case of confirmation bias than Robert's. Case in point:

Robert Prey said:
Virtually all of the alleged photo 'experts" who testified for the HSCA had a background with Am. Intelligence, as does Farid. Do you doubt that I could provide an army of photo "experts" that assert the photo(s) are a fraud? Would that make any difference? Here's a comment from author James Fitzer [sic]

"Having chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the death of JFK and edited three books with contributions from the most highly qualified experts who have ever studied the case and given hundreds of interviews and lectures on the subject, I was astonished that a Dartmouth professor would be offering a "song and dance" about photos that have been repeatedly proven to be fakes, as Lee Oswald himself observed during his interrogation. So another expert on JFK, Jim Marrs, the author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY (1989), and I co-authored "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" (18 November 2009) to expose the fraud. "


https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forum...-Hany-Farid-quot-in-the-nation-s-service-quot
Click to expand...

His "expert" here is James Fetzer, the looniest of the loons. Fetzer, in case you've forgotten, wrote a book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, "proving" that the Zapruder film was faked and believes the moon landings were a hoax and that "video fakery" was employed in the television coverage of 9/11. Fetzer makes conspiraloon Jim Marrs, (his co-author of the "exposé" of Farid referenced above by David), seem sane by comparison.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Oh, so with the source, that means you buy it? Course not. The source is a quoted from him directly on p. 386 of 'Oswald Talked" by the LaFontaines.
Click to expand...

No with the soure it means we can varify the content and context. Look at it like this: There are people who will cherry pick quotes out of context and pretend they mean something else entirely. There are people who will make stuff up, or paraphrase, etc. Just like you have by pretending that other posters will believe you based on the adding citation here, instead of the context of the statement making it clear it is a case of wanting to check your sources.

We have no reason to take your word for it. We have no reason to assume your honesty. So add a citation.
 
Robert Prey said:
As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...

Just plain wrong. Go ahead and see if you can work out why....

Here's a good place to start: You could disprove it by showing there is no evidence of the photograph being tampered. Can you think of some other ways this could be disproven? Take your time. No rush. And no shame in admitting you can't. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that proves is no other way.
 
Robert Prey said:
More than 3 experts, not affiliated with Am. Intelligence have asserted the photos as forgeries.
Click to expand...

And yet you fail to supply any citations.

Oh and being associated with Am. Intelligence doesn't invalidate their evidence. Before you go and whine about conspiracies, you have yet to prove one, and even if you had that is not the same as proving the individual reports.

You do that by supplying a piece of evidence that shows the methodology or results of the reports to be at fault. Why have you not done that yet Robert? Why? Why post useless gibberish like the response above with out a citation when you could actually prove your point, supply evidence, and actually stand a chance of convincing us?

People have told you how could convert them to your side of the argument every time you post. Yet you don't bother. Why?
 
Robert Prey said:
I have. Now disprove my proof. Go for it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you will have to state your argument clearer than that. You have proved nothing. Your job is to carry the burden of proof for your allegations, not to assume your statements can not be refuted.

Try overcoming the null.
 
I Ratant said:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.

Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.

Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Click to expand...

Check, check, check and double check. Yup, that's our Robert. :D
 
I couldn't get to Neely Street, so I made a model...
And drew up the backyard and people in Autocad..
Either can be positioned to any time of the day.
 

Attachments

  • BackyardPhotoSetup-01a.jpg
    BackyardPhotoSetup-01a.jpg
    149.1 KB · Views: 20
  • BackyardPhotoSetup-02.jpg
    BackyardPhotoSetup-02.jpg
    132.1 KB · Views: 13
  • jrBYARD1.GIF
    jrBYARD1.GIF
    33.8 KB · Views: 10
  • jrBYARD5.jpg
    jrBYARD5.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 13
Walter Ego said:
Why is it that when conspiracy mongers come to forums like this it is the skeptics who must do the heavy lifting for them as far as checking out the assertions they make and looking up those pesky sources?
Click to expand...

An enigma indeed. Being a conspiracy theorist in general does not mean you have to be bad at logic or fail to understand issues like burden of proof. The Fortean Times and the Lobster have always managed to make some bad arguments well on behalf of the believers, using excellent sources and citations even when discussing traditionally iffy subjects (area 51, what ever).

It is more worrying that you and Robo have literally telling Robert exactly what you would need to convince you. This is not an argument, a debate or a fight. It is a discussion, but if he wants to treat it as UsVsThem and "win" all he had to do was answer the direct questions and supply the evidence asked for. Instead he has made excuses (it's the job of the courts! one question at a time! etc!) and refused to cough up what you ask for. This bewilders me. He has apparently come here to prove a point or persuade us, yet refuises to do so, plays games to some agenda of what can be posted when, and so forth.

Assuming he is even remotely sincere one has to wonder why he is refusing to take the path of least resistance. Why he did not simply state a viable case in his first post, with citations, then simply answer questions it may have raised?

Or more to the point, why he simply does not do that now.
 
I still have it! :)
10 minutes ago...
 

Attachments

  • BackyardPhotoSetup-03.jpg
    BackyardPhotoSetup-03.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 12
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom