JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

From November 2011...

Do you doubt that I could provide an army of photo "experts" that assert the photo(s) are a fraud?

And here in August 2012 I'm still waiting for the "army of experts." In fact I'm just waiting for Robert to engage on the one expert he's crowing about this month.

 

[JayUtah]

But not from the grassy knoll, which has been your main argument on at least one occasion.

But of course not on every occasion. The only point JFK conspiracy theorists, trollish ones or otherwise, seem to agree on is (with full handwaving enthusiasm) "The Warren Commission got it wrong!" They don't seem interested in the least in making a better case for some other specific, testable thing. It's easy to pick out flaws in one end-to-end hypothesis, but to call that a major flaw when they can't even come up with an end-to-end hypothesis of their own that fits the facts, much less stands up to as much scrutiny as has been heaped upon the designated "official story" enemy, is quite revealing to say the least.

Robert likes to dismiss his critics with the sardonic label of "deep thinker," but in fact deep thought is not required to see that if someone is coming to the table with less than what he criticizes, those of us who don't have a vested interest in any one hypothesis can compare the two and see which one is more likely to be wrong.

This has become the hallmark of conspiracy theories. There is a never a cogent or coherent alternative; there is only a loose collection of mutually-contradictory speculation accounting for "flaws" in the official story without being able to explain the body of evidence that the official story handles most parsimoniously. Conspiracists wrongly believe that speculating about an outlying observation here or there is tantamount to having provided a more plausible explanation overall.

To listen to all the JFK theories (each of whom assumes he's the most right), there would have been a hail of bullets from a whole regiment of hidden shooters. Clearly that can't be, so at least some of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. Having a plethora of wildly conflicting stories makes one's position weaker, not stronger.

 

[BStrong]

Second is the misidentification of the wound on the throat. An understandable mistake.

/QUOTE]

I don't deal with the controversy regarding the throat wound, nonetheless, all of the medical personnel who observed the wound before the tracheostomy described it as a wound of entrance. If true, that, of course, would be another proof of a shot from the front and conspiracy.

Observed is one thing, examination is another.

"It appeared to be..." is not proof.

 

[JayUtah]

Where has the Masters in Photo analysis gone?

To be sure, the question is asking why the "masters in photo analysis" has disappeared suddenly from Robert's question, following his realization that no such explicit degree is granted. In other words, we want to have an explanation from Robert for why he's fishing from us for qualification criteria when he already asserts that certain people he's named are expert photo analysts. How was he able to determine whether they were experts without knowing how one is typically qualified?

The lesson: don't assert that someone has cleared a hurdle before you know what that hurdle is. Maybe other people can already see what you're slowly being made to realize.

 

[BStrong]

But of course not on every occasion. The only point JFK conspiracy theorists, trollish ones or otherwise, seem to agree on is (with full handwaving enthusiasm) "The Warren Commission got it wrong!" They don't seem interested in the least in making a better case for some other specific, testable thing. It's easy to pick out flaws in one end-to-end hypothesis, but to call that a major flaw when they can't even come up with an end-to-end hypothesis of their own that fits the facts, much less stands up to as much scrutiny as has been heaped upon the designated "official story" enemy, is quite revealing to say the least.

Robert likes to dismiss his critics with the sardonic label of "deep thinker," but in fact deep thought is not required to see that if someone is coming to the table with less than what he criticizes, those of us who don't have a vested interest in any one hypothesis can compare the two and see which one is more likely to be wrong.

This has become the hallmark of conspiracy theories. There is a never a cogent or coherent alternative; there is only a loose collection of mutually-contradictory speculation accounting for "flaws" in the official story without being able to explain the body of evidence that the official story handles most parsimoniously. Conspiracists wrongly believe that speculating about an outlying observation here or there is tantamount to having provided a more plausible explanation overall.

To listen to all the JFK theories (each of whom assumes he's the most right), there would have been a hail of bullets from a whole regiment of hidden shooters. Clearly that can't be, so at least some of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. Having a plethora of wildly conflicting stories makes one's position weaker, not stronger.

The bolded section is exactly correct.

One of the usual suspects came up with this: "Until somebody invents a real way-back machine, there will be a fictional platoon of shooters at Dealey plaza, from the sewers up."

 

[Robert Prey]

To be sure, the question is asking why the "masters in photo analysis" has disappeared suddenly from Robert's question, following his realization that no such explicit degree is granted. In other words, we want to have an explanation from Robert for why he's fishing from us for qualification criteria when he already asserts that certain people he's named are expert photo analysts. How was he able to determine whether they were experts without knowing how one is typically qualified?

The lesson: don't assert that someone has cleared a hurdle before you know what that hurdle is. Maybe other people can already see what you're slowly being made to realize.

But upon being questioned as to if the study of such programs would make that person an expert in photo analysis, you chose to take the 5th.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To listen to all the JFK theories (each of whom assumes he's the most right), there would have been a hail of bullets from a whole regiment of hidden shooters.

And, of course, a contemporary newspaper article reveals this to be true.

Dave

 

[Straw Man]

But upon being questioned as to if the study of such programs would make that person an expert in photo analysis, you chose to take the 5th.

If such a qualification existed, just holding it would not make someone an expert.

 

[jargon buster]

But of course not on every occasion. The only point JFK conspiracy theorists, trollish ones or otherwise, seem to agree on is (with full handwaving enthusiasm) "The Warren Commission got it wrong!"

And thats precisely why you shouldn't spend too much time rebutting Roberts points, he hasn't even made his mind up (pretends not to have) which version he wants to stick with.
His own theories consistently contradict each other.
I admire your tenacity though Jay.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, why can't you tell me which areas of the head are dipicted as having open wounds in the WC illustration?


If you can't answer the simple question, admit you can't. Though you may wish consider how many of your posts rely on your interpretation of terms discussing such regions in your medical witnesses.

 

[BStrong]

But upon being questioned as to if the study of such programs would make that person an expert in photo analysis, you chose to take the 5th.

I now agree with Jargon Buster.

You sir or madam, are a troll.

 

[JayUtah]

Roberts problem is his witnesses can be proven to be right, but his understanding of their testemony is utterly wrong.

This is a common problem among conspiracy theorists, especially when dealing with specialized knowledge and expert testimony. Most conspiracists come to the table with an incomplete and usually flawed understanding of the applicable sciences. They run into endless problems when they try to interpret specific testimony in the context of their mistaken understanding of the overall science, or according to an intuitive belief.

Ironically theologians working with scriptural exegesis write most eloquently on the subject of implicit interpretation. In nutshell, the most insidious interpretations are those that the reader applies unconsciously. He is unable to fathom how some particular passage could possibly be read otherwise because he is not aware that he has read it in any particular light. Such is also the case with much conspiracy writing. The author has applied what he believes to be the natural or singular meaning to some bit of evidence, and is initially incapable of considering other possibilities.

And the consequence of this incapacity is marked frustration when a different interpretation is presented. Typical responses include accusations that the interpreter is indifferent to reality, blanket denial, and so forth.

 

[JayUtah]

But upon being questioned as to if the study of such programs would make that person an expert in photo analysis, you chose to take the 5th.

No, "taking the fifth" is your interpretation. Instead I merely recognized your question as the latest in a long string of attempts to distract away from your unwillingness to discuss directly the qualifications of Brian Mee, an individual you asserted is an expert in photographic analysis and could provide the expert peer review you say Jack White has received. You volunteered Mee's c.v. and attempted to curry disfavor toward me by insinuating that I considered it that of merely an amateur. I took your challenge on its face and gave you a lengthy review of the proffered c.v., showing that it in no way established Mee as a photographic analyst as you suggested it should. I've asked you several times to comment on my review, but you have declined to do so. You have "taken the fifth," in your vernacular.

Instead you have proposed to examine the qualifications of certain other individuals, whom you seem to believe are or ought to be bellwethers of the field. I have not addressed your belief nor that distractionary proposal in any way, nor do I intend to. I have steadfastly asserted (with the agreement of others) that whether some third party designated by you is qualified in some way has no bearing on whether Brian Mee is as qualified as you say he is in the field you designated, and whether his c.v. bears this out, as you suggest. I can only believe that you wish to divert attention elsewhere because you have come to realize that Brian Mee is not credible as an expert.

You have further proposed to talk about expertise in photographic analysis generally in terms of a hypothetical student "Mr. X" and of tentative, vague, and contradictory descriptions of study. Your fumbling flirtation with standards of expertise have amply revealed that you are unaware of the common methods by which photographic analysis expertise is acquired, and you wish to be spoon-fed on the subject so that you can post-justify your claims already on the table.

Specifically it appears you are attempting to reconcile the deficiency of Mee's c.v. with his dubious claims to expertise by arguing now that a curriculum vitae may not accurately reflect expertise, and thus backpedal away from your original line of reasoning. If that's the case, then fine: admit that the c.v. you posted was insufficient and tell us what other evidence you plan to provide that establishes Mee as an expert.

 

[JayUtah]

And thats precisely why you shouldn't spend too much time rebutting Roberts points...

Indeed, but it's my time to waste. And so long as our JREF hosts oblige, others seem to appreciate learning what I know on various subjects, even if they also recognize Robert as incorrigible for challenging it. I tend to post things that others can learn from, even if the person I address directly does not. No, that doesn't justify going around in circles, which is why I'm not as adamantly detailed in this month's discussion of Jack White. White was examined at length back in November of last year, when I first challenged Robert.

I've been involved in these discussions long enough to recognize the "fringe reset" behavior and treat it accordingly. I know who and what Robert Prey is, and there's little danger of me taking him too seriously.

...he hasn't even made his mind up (pretends not to have) which version he wants to stick with. His own theories consistently contradict each other.

And this inconsistency is often the sign of a troll. But it's also a trait among those who are somewhat sincere. Not everyone requires coherency and cogency in their beliefs.

I admire your tenacity though Jay.

It's what I'm known for, and it has suited me well in life. I appreciate the compliment.

 

[infocusinc]

Yeah, well there seems to be some dispute about that -- including from Dr. McCelland:

Here is a copy of the drawing with a signed inscription by Dr. McCelland himself which reads:

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of
the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6425[/qimg]

And from the same blog, somehow you failed to post this from Mr. David Lifton:

I used the "McClelland diagram" in my 1989 filmed interview with Dr. McClelland and he said that it accurately portrayed what he was describing in his Warren Commission testimony.
-- David Lifton

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16949&st=45&p=214702&#entry214702

So I just emailed my friend Tink Thompson and asked for the truth.

He says:

Craig,

What HSienzant says is correct in every detail. I took the Dr. McClelland's description of the head wound at 6H33 and gave it to a medical illustrator to draw. He drew it and that is what you get in the illustration on page 107. Note that the caption for the illustration is also dead accurate. It says, "A pictorial representation of President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr.Robert N. McClelland of Parkland Hospital."

I have no recollection of ever talking with Dr. McClelland in 1966. So I'm scratching my head with respect to his comment. My best recollection is that when our LIFE team went to Parkland in November 1966 none of the doctors would talk to us. Nurses, maintenance people, security people... no problem. But I think the doctors had decided not to give interviews. I may have talked to Dr. McClelland at some other time but not in 1966.

In any case, the origin of the illustration is clear and unequivocal. It simply shows what Dr. McClelland describes in words right next to it.

Tink

 

[Robert Prey]

this is a common problem among conspiracy theorists, especially when dealing with specialized knowledge and expert testimony. Most conspiracists come to the table with an incomplete and usually flawed understanding of the applicable sciences. They run into endless problems when they try to interpret specific testimony in the context of their mistaken understanding of the overall science, or according to an intuitive belief.

Ironically theologians working with scriptural exegesis write most eloquently on the subject of implicit interpretation. In nutshell, the most insidious interpretations are those that the reader applies unconsciously. He is unable to fathom how some particular passage could possibly be read otherwise because he is not aware that he has read it in any particular light. Such is also the case with much conspiracy writing. The author has applied what he believes to be the natural or singular meaning to some bit of evidence, and is initially incapable of considering other possibilities.

And the consequence of this incapacity is marked frustration when a different interpretation is presented. Typical responses include accusations that the interpreter is indifferent to reality, blanket denial, and so forth.

rofl

 

[JayUtah]

rofl

Not even a "Baloney?"

 

[Robert Prey]

If such a qualification existed, just holding it would not make someone an expert.

Try to explain that to Jay.

 

[JayUtah]

Try to explain that to Jay.

Try to explain it to us. You've spent going on three pages running frantically from your claim that Brian Mee is an expert. What exactly makes him the expert you say he is, Robert? A predilection for lunch meat?

 

[Robert Prey]

So I just emailed my friend Tink Thompson and asked for the truth.

He says:

Craig,

What HSienzant says is correct in every detail. I took the Dr. McClelland's description of the head wound at 6H33 and gave it to a medical illustrator to draw. He drew it and that is what you get in the illustration on page 107. Note that the caption for the illustration is also dead accurate. It says, "A pictorial representation of President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr.Robert N. McClelland of Parkland Hospital."

I have no recollection of ever talking with Dr. McClelland in 1966. So I'm scratching my head with respect to his comment. /QUOTE]


The Drawing and validation with the signature of Dr. McClelland is pretty hard to refute. Perhaps Tink should try a little more head scratching.

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland"