JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Typically, the Lone Nutter's example of a neutral, open-minded, unbiased source. If John McAdams did not exist, the conspirators would have to invent him.

Classic circular reasoning as an example of Conspiracy Theorist Logic 101.

Assume the existence of that which you need to prove - the 'conspiracy' and the 'conspirators'.

Note that here Robert also indulges in that which he declares me guilty of - tarring McAdams with a broad brush ad hominem of working for the conspirators cause, while never once addressing the evidence presented.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I would like to have you cite the actual source for where he remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head and not some irrelevant McAdams junk.

Classic Robert!

How come you want me to cite primary sources even when you don't hold yourself to the same standard?

I remind you that my response was in regards to your post, where you cited only Michael Giffith's article - which offers no citations to primary sources whatsoever:

More old ground:

"... The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html

I also note that you failed to respond to any of the points I made, instead merely asking me to stick with a standard you yourself don't adhere to.

My points were three:

• 1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
  http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
  He signed this after viewing the archival photos. The document he signed has an extensive listing of the materials viewed and signed for. You merely have to page back from his signature (using the 'previous' button) to view the rest of the document cited above.
• 2. His signed statement is 30 years earlier than the recollection you cited in the Griffith article.
• 3. He mentions no large blowout in the back of the head in the 33-year-after-the-event recollection; agreeing that there was only a small entry wound in the back of the head (this is in the testimony you cited; aren't you familar with it?)

Ok, I'll relent - here it is. Please see the pages 87-92 or thereabouts.
He is pretty clear, I think, he saw no large blowout in the occipital region, putting only a small entrance wound there.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

Now, please hold yourself to the same standard you ask of me, which means you cannot cite Michael Griffith's material (where he cites only secondary sources) as evidence of anything in the future. Only primary sources.

Thanks!

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant
And this (Saundra Spencer 35-year-old recollection).

Question: How was Spence'rs account proven false???

Duh. Spencer's account is proven to be not evidence of anything meaningful by virtue of the facts that:

1) it conflicts with the signed statements of those who were actually at the autopsy and took the autopsy photos in 1963, men like John Stringer; and
2) there's no evidence Spencer was at the autopsy or developed any autopsy photos at any time;
3) it's a 35-year-old recollection so it's likely it's not accurate, and;
4) she offers no evidence nor documentation that her recollection is correct.

There's no THERE there.

So it's her 35-year-old recollection against the world. Sorry, in my book, that means she loses.

You, and Horne, want to believe a 35-year-later recollection over all the documented evidence. You claim the evidence is falsified, but do not offer any proof of that.

Any reasonable person chooses to believe the documented evidence over the 35-year-later recollection you toss up.

Unless you can offer some proof the evidence is wrong (hint: it's NOT more eyewitness testimony from years after the fact - but of course that is all you have).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The follow up is equally memorable:

Quote:
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Beautiful ... just beautiful.

And totally irrelevant.

Robert, you mean the part where he concedes he didn't account for perspective in any fashion when trying to determine if the photos of the rifle all showed the same rifle?

That's irrelevant?

So you think this photo shows the ties getting smaller?

http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=4439

Or do you think perspective needs to be taken into account when determining the relative length of the railroad ties (and the rifle)?

Hank

 

[JohnG]

I think it is you who needs to bone up on your knowledge of fallacious reasoning.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person ...
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html - Similar


Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy

For crying out loud, man, MY VERY FIRST EXAMPLE shows that I consider it a fallacy to discard out of hand someone's opinion because they don't work in the field in question. The discussion was about what is and isn't an Ad Hominem attack. It could be argued that my example is also an example of your reverse argument from authority fallacy but that doesn't mean I was wrong in calling it an Ad Hom.

Training and experience in a field where you are held accountable to your peers counts for something, believe it or not. Formulating a theory after reading 1,000 books on a subject doesn't count for much if you don't understand what you are reading and especially if you are processing what you read through some ideological filter. One way to ensure your own biases and/or lack of understanding aren't coloring your research is to run your conclusions past colleagues. Scientists and other types of researchers do this every day. Conspiracy Theorists on the other hand don't. They present their "research" to the world like Moses bringing the ten commandments down from the mountain. Anyone who disagrees with the findings is either a fool or an enemy. Your almost pathological inability to admit to mistakes, no matter how trivial, is evidence of this. You aren't here to learn, you aren't even here to get a sanity check on your research by consulting with others who have also researched the subject. YOU ARE HERE TO PREACH, and boy oh boy did you choose the wrong place to do that.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

Robert, I know none of this convinces you that anything is wrong.
But it should at least start you wondering where your beliefs went off the tracks.
The stuff you cite as evidence is NOT evidence.
It doesn't come close to evidence.
It is nonsense, pure and simple.

Comment: Another pointless post, with no specifics. Give an example of what I cite as evidence that you claim is not evidence.

Lol. I gave you the examples in the post you sliced and diced above - first you edit out my examples and then you ask for them!
Do you think that is winning converts to your 'evidence'?
You would not have to play those games if you actually had evidence.

Here it is again.

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

In the space of a little more than one paragraph:

1) He denigrates Kodak's own expert's expertise (calling him a "self-taught home movie expert")*;

2) He pits his own opinion (Horne's) against that of the expert's as if they are equal, but of course they are not;

3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

4) He rules out the affadavits signed by the film-developing personnel in Zapruder's presence for the same reason (below);

5) He proclaims the affadavit paper trail provided by Zapruder to be suspicious precisely because it doesn't allow him to question it (calling it 'almost too good' below), so he questions it for that reason (!);

6) And finally, he finds two men 35 years AFTER THE FACT to state they REMEMBER something different (below). They have no documents, simply a 35-year old memory. He uses the memory to discard everything else that is documented.

Whoop. This is typical garden-variety Conspiracy Logic 101. And it is nonsense. Obviously.

Robert, I know none of this convinces you that anything is wrong.
But it should at least start you wondering where your beliefs went off the tracks.
The stuff you cite as evidence is NOT evidence.
It doesn't come close to evidence.
It is nonsense, pure and simple.
But you find it convincing. And think it should convince us.
Uh, no.

___________

* Roland Zavada is THE recognized industry expert (and Kodak's own internal expert) on 8mm film.
Here's a brief resume:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm

 

[JayUtah]

I think it is you who needs to bone up on your knowledge of fallacious reasoning.

No, he is correct. You quote

Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy

but you neglect to reference the source. Locating the original source and reading further, we discover that it goes on to say essentially the same thing as the person you responded to.

Argument from Authority is fallacious only when the question is purely one of logical inference or deduction from uncontested observations. When the question is instead a matter of judgment that rightly includes specialized knowledge and understanding, then "authority" in the form of proper training and experience is highly relevant. It is not ad hominem or illogical in any way to reject the patently uninformed judgment of someone unskilled in the field.

 

[HSienzant]

There is no dispute about the other areas of K's head that were damaged. But that is not an argument that negates every single doctor who cites a large blow-out in the back of the head -- the Occipital Lobe -- which for some reason you just don't want to see or hear.

You brought up logical fallacies. Deal with this:
That's just an Argument From Authority, Robert.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

"Argument from authority:
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness."


This is exactly what you are doing with the medical witnesses you cite. You are arguing that we should trust the doctors' authority as eyewitnesses, because, as doctors, their eyewitness accounts cannot be wrong.

Show me the evidence the doctors are correct. Hint: it's not the 'altered' z-film (and autopsy photos), that would be a circular argument. You've already argued you know the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered because they don't show what the doctors said they saw; you cannot turn around and say you know the doctors are correct because the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered. You would be using the conclusion to justify the premise.

So what evidence do you have?


Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That is legendary witness questioning right there. That ranks right up there with My Cousin Vinny's, "are you sure about that five minutes?!"

Mmm, Marisa Tomei!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Apart from which the autopsy has been shown not to agree with robert.

The Occipital bone covers a larger area than the corresponding lobe. The wound is stated to incurr into the bone from the region of the temple, or to describe an entry wound. This was discussed at considerable length. Helpfully the WC supplied diagrams, and we have photos to confirm these findings.

 

[Robert Prey]

You brought up logical fallacies. Deal with this:
That's just an Argument From Authority, Robert.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

"Argument from authority:
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness."


This is exactly what you are doing with the medical witnesses you cite. You are arguing that we should trust the doctors' authority as eyewitnesses, because, as doctors, their eyewitness accounts cannot be wrong.

Show me the evidence the doctors are correct. Hint: it's not the 'altered' z-film (and autopsy photos), that would be a circular argument. You've already argued you know the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered because they don't show what the doctors said they saw; you cannot turn around and say you know the doctors are correct because the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered. You would be using the conclusion to justify the premise.

So what evidence do you have?
Hank

The argument from authority is only fallacious if a position of authority is used as a substitute for the evidence. It is only incidental that all the doctors at Parkland were doctors and several of the Parkland medical witnesses cited were not doctors. That does not make their stated observations any more or less valid.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, he is correct. You quote

​

but you neglect to reference the source. Locating the original source and reading further, we discover that it goes on to say essentially the same thing as the person you responded to.

Argument from Authority is fallacious only when the question is purely one of logical inference or deduction from uncontested observations. When the question is instead a matter of judgment that rightly includes specialized knowledge and understanding, then "authority" in the form of proper training and experience is highly relevant. It is not ad hominem or illogical in any way to reject the patently uninformed judgment of someone unskilled in the field.

The only arguments regarding photo fakery given by the Lone NUt posters is the claim that their experts are more expert than other experts. That is a fallacious argument from authority and an ad hominem attack as well.

 

[Robert Prey]

Lol. I gave you the examples in the post you sliced and diced above - first you edit out my examples and then you ask for them!
Do you think that is winning converts to your 'evidence'?
You would not have to play those games if you actually had evidence.

Here it is again.

What you claim is that witnesses are not evidence. How absurd. All of your own points are in fact opinion, and not evidence. Moreover, the CIA witnesses were not exactly "found" by Doug Horne. They found him by one of them viewing a live C-Span TV show on the assassination and called in to volunteer their knowledge of the Z film chain of custody.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

Comment:
And what garden variety is John McAdams???

 

[Robert Prey]

For crying out loud, man, MY VERY FIRST EXAMPLE shows that I consider it a fallacy to discard out of hand someone's opinion because they don't work in the field in question. The discussion was about what is and isn't an Ad Hominem attack. It could be argued that my example is also an example of your reverse argument from authority fallacy but that doesn't mean I was wrong in calling it an Ad Hom.

Training and experience in a field where you are held accountable to your peers counts for something, believe it or not. Formulating a theory after reading 1,000 books on a subject doesn't count for much if you don't understand what you are reading and especially if you are processing what you read through some ideological filter. One way to ensure your own biases and/or lack of understanding aren't coloring your research is to run your conclusions past colleagues. Scientists and other types of researchers do this every day. Conspiracy Theorists on the other hand don't. They present their "research" to the world like Moses bringing the ten commandments down from the mountain. Anyone who disagrees with the findings is either a fool or an enemy. Your almost pathological inability to admit to mistakes, no matter how trivial, is evidence of this. You aren't here to learn, you aren't even here to get a sanity check on your research by consulting with others who have also researched the subject. YOU ARE HERE TO PREACH, and boy oh boy did you choose the wrong place to do that.

And that is all a bunch of baloney. I have indeed made one or two mistakes and admitted to them. One was assuming that the Z film was unaltered., for example. That was a mistake. On the other hand, when it comes to simple observations, no expertise is required. Another example of a backyard photo anomaly, is the shape of Oswald's chin. Does it take a degree in photogrammetry to make the observation that the chin in the back yard photo is different, square, while the chin in Oswald's other photos is not???

Backyard Photo



Mugshot

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you mean the part where he concedes he didn't account for perspective in any fashion when trying to determine if the photos of the rifle all showed the same rifle?

That's irrelevant?

So you think this photo shows the ties getting smaller?

http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=4439

Or do you think perspective needs to be taken into account when determining the relative length of the railroad ties (and the rifle)?

Hank

White didn't concede anything about not accounting for perspective. Only that he didn't know the meaning of a technical term for it. But you continue to dwell on "expertise" in favor of the evidence that he and other experts have pointed out. I refer you to the above post regarding Oswald's square as versus rounded chin. Explain how photogrammetry has any bearing on that anomaly??

 

[Tomtomkent]

Perhaps if you had that degree you might stand a better chance of realising why it is not different, just at a different angle with differing shadows.

Or the difference between the angle of the rifle torso in that photograph, compared to the difference in angle of your "exact enough" analogues.

Are you making an argument from ignorance? You don't need fancy dan qualifications, so anything the qualification might cover is hooey?

 

[Robert Prey]

Duh. Spencer's account is proven to be not evidence of anything meaningful by virtue of the facts that:

1) it conflicts with the signed statements of those who were actually at the autopsy and took the autopsy photos in 1963, men like John Stringer; and

That is also false. After Stringer took the pics, he never even looked to see what they were after they were developed. All the signed statement proves is that he took some pictures, none of which he recognized when shown years later. You have not impeached Spencer's account with anything.

 

[Robert Prey]

Classic Robert!

• 1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
  http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
  He signed this after viewing the archival photos. !

• 
  
  Hank wrote:
  a'1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
  http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
  He signed this after viewing the archival photos."
  
  According to an interview with D. Lifton, that is also false.
  
  Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?"
  
  Stringer: In the back.
  P. 516, Best Evidence
  
  and
  
  on page 518:
  
  Lifton: What did you guys check for when you logged it into the archives in 1966?"
  
  Stringer: "Well, I can't since I didn't see it after it was developed."

 

[Robert Prey]

Classic circular reasoning as an example of Conspiracy Theorist Logic 101.

Assume the existence of that which you need to prove - the 'conspiracy' and the 'conspirators'.

Note that here Robert also indulges in that which he declares me guilty of - tarring McAdams with a broad brush ad hominem of working for the conspirators cause, while never once addressing the evidence presented.

Hank

Only the last 100 pages or so.