JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[TheRedWorm]

I understand the difference; I provided a specific example as I never implied that this stand alone event is a sufficient enough coincident to indict anyone. Having said that, I would like to see the rationale behind the stock trade as it was so far out of the "typical" action of any aerospace company buying back it's own stock. What even made this transaction all the more strange is that not one Brokerage House followed suit on the Owners actions; if those Houses felt that it was a smart move, they would have followed suit.

How about, so what? They had their own reasons for doing so at the time. Unless and until you can show something that suggests that it had anything to do with the JFK assassination, all you have is useless speculation. Also, given other conspiracy theorists predilection of stretching the truth, accusation by innuendo, and outright lying, you'll forgive us if we don't give your speculations much thought.

 

[Straw Man]

There is absolutely nothing that will support your assertion. If you were to tell me that it only takes 7 seconds to reach the Sun; I do not need to provide you with the countervailing theory to say you are wrong. The same holds true for putting together "coincidences". A casual chain is not what I provided, I did not suggest that every observance is a contributing factor; my example does require a logical explanation as it is outside the standard deviation of put options for the aerospace industry.

American involvement in Vietnam had been going on a long time before Kennedy's assassination, and Kennedy did escalate the American presence in Vietnam. Defence contractors would have been aware of that, and they and investors would be looking toward making money from escalating tensions. It's not a deviation from the norm.

 

[JayUtah]

There is absolutely nothing that will support your assertion.

Well, it's part of what I do for a living, so I'll keep my own counsel.

If you were to tell me that it only takes 7 seconds to reach the Sun; I do not need to provide you with the countervailing theory to say you are wrong.

Straw man. Actual investigation points are never so cut and dried, and "impossible" in conspiracy theories is almost always merely "doesn't meet my expectation." And those expectations are typically naive, misinformed, or overly assumptive.

If I told you I reached the Sun in 7 seconds, you might be tempted to tell me that what I claimed to have done is impossible. But then you'd be assuming that I started from Earth. If, in fact, I started only a short distance away from it, then I can still be right. The art of investigation involves exactly paring away those hidden assumptions.

The same holds true for putting together "coincidences". A casual chain is not what I provided, I did not suggest that every observance is a contributing factor...

You asked us to explain an observation. You wrongly implied that the observation had to be explained by the prevailing theory of Kennedy's assassination, in a way that connected them. And if it couldn't, then that bit of evidence made the prevailing theory untenable. That's not how real investigations work. But if you want to spin a conspiracy theory that involves your proffered observation as well as a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, that theory still has to explain more of the pertinent observations than the prevailing theory in order to be preferred over it. It may do a better job of explaining that one point, but only at the expense of all the rest.

Parsimony is the concept you're missing. Telling a conspiracy theory that explains only the proffered observation plus a few more doesn't result in a parsimonious theory. It leaves too many other ends untied and is overall a worse theory.

my example does require a logical explanation...

Your attempt to connect it to the Kennedy assassination is purely conjectural. That's exactly my point. You find one isolated observation, and feel the need to incorporate it into some overall historical theory that explains everything. Not necessary: there are several causal chains at work at any given time in any domain of evidence. It is not necessary that they all be interrelated.

...as it is outside the standard deviation of put options for the aerospace industry.

No, it isn't. I'm an engineer. I currently work in the aerospace industry, and part of my duties include forensic investigation of incidents.

 

[Robert Prey]

"Blow-out [sic]," Mr. Prey. What is it?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Indeed.

 

[abaddon]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

Why is Mick Jagger eating someones head?

 

[ladmo]

Well, it's part of what I do for a living, so I'll keep my own counsel

Lake Wobegone Effect

Straw man. Actual investigation points are never so cut and dried, and "impossible" in conspiracy theories is almost always merely "doesn't meet my expectation." And those expectations are typically naive, misinformed, or overly assumptive.

No it is not; it is an example of where you don't need to provide a correct answer to prove another answer wrong.

If I told you I reached the Sun in 7 seconds, you might be tempted to tell me that what I claimed to have done is impossible. But then you'd be assuming that I started from Earth. If, in fact, I started only a short distance away from it, then I can still be right. The art of investigation involves exactly paring away those hidden assumptions.

Red Herring

You asked us to explain an observation. You wrongly implied that the observation had to be explained by the prevailing theory of Kennedy's assassination, in a way that connected them. And if it couldn't, then that bit of evidence made the prevailing theory untenable. That's not how real investigations work. But if you want to spin a conspiracy theory that involves your proffered observation as well as a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, that theory still has to explain more of the pertinent observations than the prevailing theory in order to be preferred over it. It may do a better job of explaining that one point, but only at the expense of all the rest.

There was never a dialog, you immediately went into a dissection of the comment. You carry, in your mind, some level of superiority which has not been validated.

Parsimony is the concept you're missing. Telling a conspiracy theory that explains only the proffered observation plus a few more doesn't result in a parsimonious theory. It leaves too many other ends untied and is overall a worse theory.

Again, there was a single comment and not a discussion...

Your attempt to connect it to the Kennedy assassination is purely conjectural. That's exactly my point. You find one isolated observation, and feel the need to incorporate it into some overall historical theory that explains everything. Not necessary: there are several causal chains at work at any given time in any domain of evidence. It is not necessary that they all be interrelated.

The WC report was conjectural...

No, it isn't. I'm an engineer. I currently work in the aerospace industry, and part of my duties include forensic investigation of incidents.

The trading event was statistically significant, please provide your support that it was a casual variation.

Another element to add to the LTV stock trade; One of the men who made the trade, owned the Texas School Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting. Since you are an Engineer, you may apply some of your knowledge (unless you are an IE) to find the statistical probability of these events occuring if they are not related.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

Right. Now try and offer a definition, not an illustrative example.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case.

Nope, if you want to suggest that something is a "coincidence" rather than a coincidence you need to offer a plausible theory to link the events, and a methodology for gathering evidence to prove the link. The T in CT does not stand for "speculation."

Maybe you can explain this particular coincidence that took place. James Ling and an investment partner took out a put options purchase on their own Defense company LTV, in early November of '63. In February of '64, LBJ announced his FIRST major prime defense contract since taking office and it went to LTV, it was for a fighter aircraft to be used in Vietnam. This short position went 10X in under 3 years. The $2.5M that the two men took out represented over 100 times the size of any other put options in the Aerospace issues durinng the same time period. Is this a coincidence? It very well could be but it is just another interesting point that WC supporters dismiss; especially since the WC never brought this up.

Ok. It was a coincidence. See, explained it. More than one thing happens at any one time and you have offered no plausible theory to connect the events described to the assasination. Why would the WC bring it up? It is perfectly possible that happened entirely independantly of LHO killing JFK, so where is your evidence to support the claim they are connected.

The WC never brought up the pilot episode of Dr Who being broadcast ("An Unearthly Child"). Are you suggesting that just because I find it plausible I can state, with out evidence or a theory, that LBJ COULD have ordered the death of JFK to delay broadcast until he knew he would be near a television? Or can I dismiss your statements just because I don't find it plausible?


You need to supply evidence to make a theory. Just saying "Coincidence" and raising your eyebrows doesn't cut it. Sorry.

 

[I Ratant]

A picture sketch isn't worth a thousand words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

.
Photos are worth a 1000 or more words.
Annotated for clarity, even.

 

[JayUtah]

Lake Wobegone Effect

Not an answer.

No it is not; it is an example of where you don't need to provide a correct answer to prove another answer wrong.

As stated, it's a straw-man example. I gave you a counter-example which you did not address.

The WC report was conjectural...

Perhaps, but that is not the way in which I describe your claims as conjecture. See below.

The trading event was statistically significant...

According to what model? As determined by whom, and by what method?

Since you are an Engineer, you may apply some of your knowledge (unless you are an IE) to find the statistical probability of these events occuring if they are not related.

Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming a statistical significance, so show your work.

You are further claiming that the statistical salience of an event correlates to circumstantial observations, but you have cherry-picked the observation from among several possible ones. That is the hallmark of conspiratorial reasoning: the alleged correlation is established circularly.

And you have even further claimed that these two factors (the alleged statistical significance of the stock trade, and a fact about the trader) imply a causation that is not explained by the prevailing theory, thus the prevailing theory must be discarded on that basis alone. All of that is your burden of proof.

 

[JayUtah]

Right. Now try and offer a definition, not an illustrative imaginative example.

That's how I would have phrased it.

Robert, you say you have more than 40 people who testify to a "blow-out." The question is more than just what a "blow-out" is, in the medical sense. The question is how many of the witnesses actually used those exact words? You have a chronic problem with understanding the connection between what a witness says and what you say the witness says.

 

[EventHorizon]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

So are you going to answer the question yet?

 

[ladmo]

Nope, if you want to suggest that something is a "coincidence" rather than a coincidence you need to offer a plausible theory to link the events, and a methodology for gathering evidence to prove the link. The T in CT does not stand for "speculation."

I have not speculated anything; I presented events that occurred. A plausible theory is not required when facts are provided.

Ok. It was a coincidence. See, explained it. More than one thing happens at any one time and you have offered no plausible theory to connect the events described to the assasination. Why would the WC bring it up? It is perfectly possible that happened entirely independantly of LHO killing JFK, so where is your evidence to support the claim they are connected.

As you stated it is perfectly possible that it happened entirely independent of the killing of JFK but it is significant since the singular act of put options was outside the normal behavior of trading; coupled with two other coincidences with the same targets that have ties to the killing of JFK is more than just eyebrow raising.

The WC never brought up the pilot episode of Dr Who being broadcast ("An Unearthly Child"). Are you suggesting that just because I find it plausible I can state, with out evidence or a theory, that LBJ COULD have ordered the death of JFK to delay broadcast until he knew he would be near a television? Or can I dismiss your statements just because I don't find it plausible?

If you do not find the events plausible... fine; I am not sure what you mean by being plausible, there is no doubt that the events took place yet, you feel that LHO killed the President. Do you feel that it was proper for Allen Dulles to keep quiet about LHO's involvement with the CIA and that this information would be "plausible"?

You need to supply evidence to make a theory. Just saying "Coincidence" and raising your eyebrows doesn't cut it. Sorry.

I have provided evidence what I have not provided is my opinion. If you care to speculate my opinion, go for it.

 

[JayUtah]

I have not speculated anything; I presented events that occurred. A plausible theory is not required when facts are provided.

You interpret those facts (which are a selected subset of all the available facts) to form the opinion that what happened cannot be explained by coincidence. You further suggest that they have a causal relationship to the Kennedy assassination. You've provided no evidence to support either of these propositions.

You're simply dressing up the standard conspiracy rhetoric that one merely has to erode faith in the "official story" in order to make an affirmative case for a conspiracy. But the case you're making is not any specific case; just some nebulous, undefined scenario that includes both an allegedly suspicious stock trade and some vague plot to kill the President. That immediately fails parsimony, compared to the prevailing theory. You say the Warren Commission should have explained this, but that's as far as you go.

As you stated it is perfectly possible that it happened entirely independent of the killing of JFK but it is significant since the singular act of put options was outside the normal behavior of trading...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

...is more than just eyebrow raising.

Vague. You're deliberately avoiding any testable conclusions. That makes your argument worthless as an investigation.

I have provided evidence what I have not provided is my opinion.

No, you have provided exactly the opposite of what you say, then you have tried to shift the burden of proof to make other people responsible for showing that your opinion is wrong or otherwise indefensible.

 

[ladmo]

You interpret those facts (which are a selected subset of all the available facts) to form the opinion that what happened cannot be explained by coincidence. You further suggest that they have a causal relationship to the Kennedy assassination. You've provided no evidence to support either of these propositions.

Since you have no understanding of statistical nominclature, your protestations fall on deft ears.

You're simply dressing up the standard conspiracy rhetoric that one merely has to erode faith in the "official story" in order to make an affirmative case for a conspiracy. But the case you're making is not any specific case; just some nebulous, undefined scenario that includes both an allegedly suspicious stock trade and some vague plot to kill the President. That immediately fails parsimony, compared to the prevailing theory. You say the Warren Commission should have explained this, but that's as far as you go.

The claims you make are your own Strawman; what vague plot did I put forth? Let me google for you... NONE.

You have no idea about statistics yet you pass yourself off as an Engineer...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Again, you have no grasp of math or stats.

No, you have provided exactly the opposite of what you say, then you have tried to shift the burden of proof to make other people responsible for showing that your opinion is wrong or otherwise indefensible.

In short, a company that trades put options at a rate 100X higher than any other firm in it's field 2+ months prior to being given a huge military contract while one of the owners who traded for those shares also owns the building that LHO allegely shot the President is purely coincidental and that the WC was completely proper in not investigating this association?

 

[abaddon]

Since you have no understanding of statistical nominclature, your protestations fall on deft ears.

Putting that claim at Jay is kinda funny, and the word you seek is deaf.

The claims you make are your own Strawman; what vague plot did I put forth? Let me google for you... NONE.

Correct. You simply sought for a vague insinuation.

You have no idea about statistics yet you pass yourself off as an Engineer...

I have presented my credentials here, as has Jay. Where are yours?

Again, you have no grasp of math or stats.

As above,, sure you have.

In short, a company that trades put options at a rate 100X higher than any other firm in it's field 2+ months prior to being given a huge military contract while one of the owners who traded for those shares also owns the building that LHO allegely shot the President is purely coincidental and that the WC was completely proper in not investigating this association?

Irrelevant blah. You have nothing.

ETA: Bear in mind that I have posted my professional credentials on this very site. Jay has done so on many sites.
I am not afraid to identify myself. Why are you?

 

[ladmo]

How about, so what? They had their own reasons for doing so at the time. Unless and until you can show something that suggests that it had anything to do with the JFK assassination, all you have is useless speculation. Also, given other conspiracy theorists predilection of stretching the truth, accusation by innuendo, and outright lying, you'll forgive us if we don't give your speculations much thought.

Where is the outright lying? Now that you made this accusation.. point it out.

 

[ladmo]

I have presented my credentials here, as has Jay. Where are yours?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[JayUtah]

Since you have no understanding of statistical nominclature, your protestations fall on deft ears.

You have no idea about statistics yet you pass yourself off as an Engineer...

Again, you have no grasp of math or stats.

Nonsense. First of all, my reputation as an engineer is well-established here and elsewhere. Your ham-fisted attempts to poison the well will be pretty amusing should you choose to continue.

Second, you made the assertions of statistical salience. I asked you a few simple questions regarding the method used to arrive at the conclusion of salience, and you failed to answer a single on of them. You further responded to that point only to accuse me of ignorance, without having undertaken any exercise to test my knowledge. I'm simply asking you to flesh out the argument you chose to make. Clearly you cannot, but that's no reason to hurl unfounded accusations at your critics.

Third, you simply stated an alleged statistic. You did not document or derive it. You did not place it in any meaningful statistical context.

Fourth, you make no quantitative claim of significance. Coincidence is the null hypothesis in a problem involving alleged statistical correlations. Therefore you have the burden to prove (in a numerical fashion, if you believe it can be done), that the events you claim to be improbable actually are. So far you've just begged the question and tried to shift the burden of proof.

Fifth, baiting people into doing your homework for you is bad practice. You have the burden of proof, and I will be grading your answer.

In short, a company that trades put options at a rate 100X higher than any other firm in it's field 2+ months prior to being given a huge military contract while one of the owners who traded for those shares also owns the building that LHO allegely shot the President is purely coincidental and that the WC was completely proper in not investigating this association?

Would you like me to expose all the assumptions you're making in this paragraph, or shall I assume you can figure them out on your own?