JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[HSienzant]

Bottom line is that you are clueless when chain of possession

I asked you to cite a relevant text that says that removing the body of a severely injured victim was a destruction of crime scene evidence. I also pointed out that the bag was properly handled after Studebaker inadvertently picked it up. You can't document your absurd claims because they're nonsense. I know it, everyone here knows it, and you know it.

Your rhetoric is so incomprehensible that it is a waste of time.

If you have a specific question about any of my points, feel free to ask. But simpy dismissing it as 'incomprehensible' is silly, because I'm certain plenty of others here had no problem understanding it. If you have problems understanding it, do let me know what is confusing to you, and I'll be happy to go slower.

Your claims are just that... claims.

No, each was backed up with examples, logic, and /orcitations, as necessary. If you disagree, pick any or all that you feel was inadequately supported and we can discuss further. But just dismissing everything as unsupported claims is nonsense, because each claim was supported.

You just use the word "FALSE" without any support documentation but that is understandable because there is none.

No, each was backed up with examples, logic, and citations. If you disagree, pick any or all that you feel was inadequately supported and we can discuss further.

I love your assertion "Except for Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently, FALSE." and exactly where did you determine "inadvertently"?

Logic and reason demands it.
(a) As you note, the bag should have been photographed in place. before being handled.
(b) Studebaker was a crime-lab trainee, working in the crime lab about a month.
(c) Studebaker admitted in his testimony to picking the bag up before it was photographed in place.

Ergo, it was a mistake by Studebaker to do that, and it was simply an inadvertent error on his part.

Please provide testimony to this action. You may need to read the testimonies a third time as the previous two times are not working for you.

Hilarious. Please read Studebaker's testimony in its entirety. You are aware he was just a trainee, right? You are aware he been working with J.C.Day getting on-the-job training for only about a month prior to the assassination, right? You are aware he admitted to picking up the bag before it was photographed in place, right? All that was in his testimony. And you are aware he should NOT have done that, right? Ergo, it was inadvertent.

Like a typical Lone-Nutter you resort to "recycling old claims gleaned from some conspiracy and already proven to be bogus based on research to my own satisfaction decades ago."... well, I guess this is case closed because of your research decades ago.

Your claim makes no sense as written. I am not recycling old conspiracy claims. You are.

And the evidence that disproves them is likewise decades old.

This just shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You dismiss additional releases under the FOIA as they don't fit your model?

Nope. You quoted testimony from 1964. I rebutted it with testimony from 1964. If and when you quote something released more recently, I'll rebut that with the evidence from 1964 or more recently.

You are the only person I have read that says these findings are no use, let's not let facts get in the way of making an informed decision.

Straw argument. I never said anything like that, and you won't be able to quote me saying anything like that.

This statement alone diminishes your ability to assimilate facts into your "conclusions".

Eh? Because you post a statement that is entirely a straw argument, my ability to assimilate facts is diminished? I don't think so.

Relying on decades old information is like using a typewriter to bang out your correspondence today but then again, that would be on the same level of your complete lack of fact based arguments.

If that was true, why have YOU been relying on testimony from 1964 to make your claims? You appear to be arguing that it's okay for YOU to quote the 1964 Warren Commission testimony to make your points, but it's not right for me to demonstrate how you (or more likely, your conspiracy sources) took that testimony out of context to make a point by quoting back to you the stuff that was omitted and put it back into context? Is that your argument?

And arguing that the 1964 testimony is like using a typewriter instead of a computer is a very poor analogy on your part. The earliest testimony is the best testimony. After decades pass, memory of events is pretty much worthless. Do some independent research on memory, and how it works.

All the best,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

In this case he really isn't. If the claim is that the bag photographed outside the building was found at a place inside the building that has probative value in the case against Oswald, then some kind of evidence has to be presented for that hypothesis.

But of course what's happening here is the typical tap-dance and the arbitrary shifting of standards of evidence. Here ladmo demands that only a single kind of evidence (namely the crime scene photograph) will suffice as proof. That's a straw man. Taking a photograph of evidence in situ is a sensible policy. But the hidden premise in this argument, as it has been elsewhere, is that officers should have strictly followed procedure, and if they didn't, the default explanation for that is framing Oswald.

The standards shift is arbitrary because the conspiracy theory elsewhere relies on isolated eyewitness testimony to trump all other evidence, even physical. If that's not a double standard, then eyewitness testimony should elsewhere be held pre-eminent, especially when the disputation is based on nothing more than the speculative explanation for a small procedural misstep. So if witnesses say the bag was recovered in the Depository, they should be believed. Here, of course, ladmo just picks and chooses which eyewitnesses he wants to believe based on whether they fit a predetermined conclusion.

Since a lot of this thread has dealt with photographs introduced as evidence, and the almost rabid attempt to declare such photographic evidence fraudulent or forged, I don't typically pay much attention to conspiracist requests that insinuate photographs are the sine qua non of evidence. They're just trying to score rhetorical points based on what they think is the appearance of impropriety.

Excellent points.

If eyewitness testimony indicts Oswald, but no photograph exists, conspiracists ask for the photograph and dismiss the eyewitnesses.

If film or photos exist, but the eyewitnesses differ (like some TSBD saying the found rifle was a Mauser whereas the crime scene photos and the Alyea film show a Mannlicher-Carcano), then of course the eyewitnesses can't be mistaken or lying, and the photographic evidence is discounted as a recreation. Ditto with the Parkland doctors and the Zapruder film - some of the doctors recall a head wound in the rear of the head, but the Z-film shows the massive damage above the ear extending to the top of the head.

If eyewitness testimony and photographs exist (like the backyard photos) and both indict Oswald, conspiracists find reasons to dismiss the eyewitness as mistaken or liars, and argue the photos are forgeries.


The only constant in their shifting arguments is Oswald must be framed. There is no rhyme or reason in their arguments other than that.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Deeper research in DiEugenio's 'Destiny Betrayed'...

Stop shilling the book. We get it: you read it, you liked it, and you are single-sourcing all your arguments from it. But "According to DiEugenio..." is not a persuasive argument, for the reasons already given multiple times.

 

[HSienzant]

Veciana had a bullet put into his head after he told HSCA Phillips was Bishop. If he denied it later on it's understandable considering the murderous pressure Veciana experienced in Cuban exile-populated Miami, which included that bullet.

Not later, to the HSCA. Did you check the citations I provided?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9674182&postcount=4775

Deeper research in DiEugenio's 'Destiny Betrayed' shows Phillips was identified in New Orleans by many others as being the CIA handler for the Cuban exiles and their anti-Castro operations, of which Veciana was a documented member.

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether Phillips is Bishop. Veciana said no.
So did at least one other person.

In any case, Veciana signed an affidavit on his death bed confirming the story.

So he changed his claim from it's not Bishop to it is Bishop, and this was done after a bullet to the head? Hmmm.. what do you make of that?

I'll take his word on it over an obviously excuse-seeking denier.

So will I. His testimony to the HSCA, previously cited and with a link provided, says he denied it to the HSCA. Why should we believe his later recanting of that testimony, especially since you don't document the supposed affidavit in any way?

And why shouldn't we believe the bullet to the head, if it was an intimidation factor, affected his honesty concerning the affidavit? You are simply discounting everything that conflicts with your beliefs, and accepting everything that doesn't.

But if it's true Veciana changed his story, why is he a credible witness? You don't know which story is true. You don't even know if the supposed bullet to the head (when did this happen, and can you document it please?) didn't affect his memory.

Wonder how Veciana would fare on a lie detector test?

I guess the examiner could conclude the subject showed no reaction to any of the questions put to him.

Although with him being dead and all, I doubt we'd be able to draw much of a conclusion from that.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Veciana had a bullet put into his head after he told HSCA Phillips was Bishop. If he denied it later on it's understandable considering the murderous pressure Veciana experienced in Cuban exile-populated Miami, which included that bullet.

Deeper research in DiEugenio's 'Destiny Betrayed' shows Phillips was identified in New Orleans by many others as being the CIA handler for the Cuban exiles and their anti-Castro operations, of which Veciana was a documented member.

In any case, Veciana signed an affidavit on his death bed confirming the story. I'll take his word on it over an obviously excuse-seeking denier.

' Wonder how Veciana would fare on a lie detector test?

Since the conversation w/ Schweiker where Veciana denied that Phillips was Bishop took place before he was shot, where does that leave your deeper research?

BTW afaik Veciana is still alive.

 

[abaddon]

Since the conversation w/ Schweiker where Veciana denied that Phillips was Bishop took place before he was shot, where does that leave your deeper research?

BTW afaik Veciana is still alive.

He issued a statement less than 3 weeks ago, so he is either alive or a zombie.

 

[Mudcat]

He issued a statement less than 3 weeks ago, so he is either alive or a zombie.

Not true. He could also be one of the the Doctor's companions.

 

[BStrong]

He issued a statement less than 3 weeks ago, so he is either alive or a zombie.

I would imagine that since zombie's and the various JFK assassination theories we discuss here are products of the imagination, a zombie would likely be a ct supporter.

But I could be wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

...a zombie would likely be a ct supporter.

Forty-plus medical zombies.

 

[BStrong]

Forty-plus medical zombies.

Baloney!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In this case he really isn't. If the claim is that the bag photographed outside the building was found at a place inside the building that has probative value in the case against Oswald, then some kind of evidence has to be presented for that hypothesis.

But if the null hypothesis is that Oswald is both guilty and acted alone, isn't the burden carried by a person attempting to cast doubt on any single aspect of the case?

Furthermore, not photographing a piece of evidence (such as the bag) can easily be chalked up to rather easy-to-account-for crime scene processing errors. To me, the alternative - one or more police officers planting and/or falsifying evidence - is the larger leap to make.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ladmo wishes to shift the burden to a place where he can suggest shenanigans. He wishes to shift the burden away because he simply can not provide even a little evidence, much less an extraordinary degree of it.

 

[Robrob]

But if the null hypothesis is that Oswald is both guilty and acted alone, isn't the burden carried by a person attempting to cast doubt on any single aspect of the case?

Been going through this on a Facebook 911 page. After being shot down over and over gain, Truthers are demanding I present what I claim happened. The concept of a null hypothesis seems to have been lost on most CT.

Furthermore, not photographing a piece of evidence (such as the bag) can easily be chalked up to rather easy-to-account-for crime scene processing errors. To me, the alternative - one or more police officers planting and/or falsifying evidence - is the larger leap to make.

Yep. Never mistake stupidity and incompetence for conspiracy.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ladmo wishes to shift the burden to a place where he can suggest shenanigans. He wishes to shift the burden away because he simply can not provide even a little evidence, much less an extraordinary degree of it.

His SOP seems to be to make you validate your null hypothesis and avoid presenting anything for you to debunk.

 

[JayUtah]

But if the null hypothesis is that Oswald is both guilty and acted alone, isn't the burden carried by a person attempting to cast doubt on any single aspect of the case?

No, no exactly. Null hypothesis and burden of proof are not carte blanche. While the proponent of the conspiracy theory has the overall burden of proof, and while the null hypothesis typically holds by default, this is not the antiseptic world of statistical probability. A statistically pure null hypotheses doesn't occur in real-world investigation of happenstance activities.

Because the null hypothesis here does not arise out of the numerical concept of significance, the principle of parsimony stands in its stead. A shooting victim requires a shooter. The null hypothesis for the number of shooters is one. The null(ish) hypothesis for the identity of the shooter still requires some affirmative proof. Parsimony governs the establishment of the prevailing hypothesis, and the overall high-level burden of proof does not extend to "any single aspect of the case."

Furthermore, not photographing a piece of evidence (such as the bag) can easily be chalked up to rather easy-to-account-for crime scene processing errors.

...combined with a naive misunderstanding of crime-scene photography principles and rules. You photograph evidence in situ to document its disposition as it's found. In this case an officer moved the bag before it could be photographed. This was an error. As a result of the error, the bag should not have been photographed in place, because it would wrongly insinuate that the (replaced) condition was how it was originally found. A photograph at that point would have been useless at best and misleading at worst. Ladmo wrongly believes it should have been photographed anyway; his mistake is the difference between armchair investigation and actual useful investigation.

ladmo wishes to shift the burden to a place where he can suggest shenanigans. He wishes to shift the burden away because he simply can not provide even a little evidence, much less an extraordinary degree of it.

As he is so fond of reminding us, ladmo has no dog in the fight. With that disclaimer hovering over every post, he can back away from any assertion. That leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that he's only here to stir things up, not examine the case.

 

[BStrong]

Been going through this on a Facebook 911 page. After being shot down over and over gain, Truthers are demanding I present what I claim happened. The concept of a null hypothesis seems to have been lost on most CT.


Yep. Never mistake stupidity and incompetence for conspiracy.


His SOP seems to be to make you validate your null hypothesis and avoid presenting anything for you to debunk.

Ahh, someone who gets it.

In the case of JFK, you have to throw panic, confusion and the "too many chiefs" factor into it as well.

I'd like to again point out that LEA's make mistakes on a pretty regular basis, the one that comes to mind is the incident where S.F.P.D. lost an automobile out of impound that was evidence in a homicide...hth?

The vehicle was somehow mistakenly released by the P.D. and was later recovered, but how do you make a mistake like that?

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was an attack of dumb ass to the head.

 

[I Ratant]

Had one like that here.
The impounded vehicle was released to the relatives of the owner, who discovered her BODY in the back of the van!

 

[JayUtah]

In the case of JFK, you have to throw panic, confusion and the "too many chiefs" factor into it as well.

Most of the reasons cited by the armchair detectives of the conspiracy crowd for why the JFK assassination should have been the paragon of perfection and virtue (i.e., it was so important they naturally would have done everything right) are actually the best reasons for why it unfolded the way it did.

The vehicle was somehow mistakenly released by the P.D. and was later recovered, but how do you make a mistake like that?

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was an attack of dumb ass to the head.

Or more formally stated, the "normalization of risk." This concept is pretty much what dominates any incident in which operator error is a factor. Human nature is such that we normalize to circumstances. We identify jobs such as factory operators, airline pilots, doctors, etc. whose professional judgment and action have profound effects on other people, and often on great numbers of them. We presume that these jobs are approached with much greater care overall than less injurious ones. And for a time, they are.

The passengers in an airliner entrust their lives to the pilot and presume that he takes a greater amount of care in the discharge of his duty as the driver of a passenger car. In fact we find that the level of care is roughly equal. The pilot has normalized to the risk of his job. Similarly we presume that criminal investigators must be very much more careful in the execution of their jobs, since so much is at stake. But again, we find that such people normalize to the situation and exercise about as much care in doing their jobs as someone in a profession with less direct effect over others.

 

[abaddon]

In any case, Veciana signed an affidavit on his death bed confirming the story. I'll take his word on it over an obviously excuse-seeking denier.

No comment, Jetblast?

Can't find any evidence for the "death bed affidavit" of a man who is still alive? No?

Did DiEugenio tell you that? Is that why you posted it?

ETA: Last Activity: Yesterday 10:12 AM so I know you saw it.

 

[ladmo]

No, no exactly. Null hypothesis and burden of proof are not carte blanche. While the proponent of the conspiracy theory has the overall burden of proof, and while the null hypothesis typically holds by default, this is not the antiseptic world of statistical probability. A statistically pure null hypotheses doesn't occur in real-world investigation of happenstance activities.

What you fail to recognize is that Oswald being a lone gunman is a theory unto itself. Since there has never been and more than likely never will be a trial, this entire assassination is nothing but a theory. You cannot claim anything as a baseline since only Commissions and independent researchers have carried the heavy loads. There are two distinct camps... "lone gunman" and "there was help". Burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim. That rule is plain and simple no matter how many times you attempt to redefine it. A prevailing hypothesis is present in science not in murder cases especially ones that have never seen the light of a courthouse. So far, the Commissions have been political and unless you consider "political science" a science, the burden of proof still is and will always be on the individual who makes a claim.

As he is so fond of reminding us, ladmo has no dog in the fight. With that disclaimer hovering over every post, he can back away from any assertion. That leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that he's only here to stir things up, not examine the case.

I have shown that I have "examined" the case contrary to your rhetoric. I make a statement and back it up; others may ask questions and if I feel that it moves it forward I will respond, if the question/comment is interpreted to grind down my comments without support, I will normally ignore it.

What is erratic in your behavior and responses is that you do not challenge your followers/sheeple or hold them up to the "standards" you do to those who disagree with you. An example: BStrong makes a claim that LHO was an exceptional clearance by the FBI or something to that ilk. I challenged that (burden of proof is on BStrong since he made the claim) yet your position was that BStrong had 15 years of law enforcement background and that meant that I had to go out and prove him wrong. That meant I needed to prove a negative... Heck, the FBI NEVER even had jurisdiction in this case... It is silly draconian comments like that which diminishes your position at all levels. You do not possess the ability (or at least shown it) to examine the points from any other perspective besides attempting to put down another, there are no eyes wide open. At least Hank and BStrong put forth arguments and have the backbone to defend them, you have not provided any substance other than retreading the word "parsimony" and few other nuggets that will appear in the next day or two.

 

[Dcdrac]

Ladmo a theory is a proved idea, or set of ideas and LHO being the lone gunman has been proved over and over again by the hard evidence.

 

[ladmo]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ladmo wishes to shift the burden to a place where he can suggest shenanigans. He wishes to shift the burden away because he simply can not provide even a little evidence, much less an extraordinary degree of it.

You are completely wrong. I have challenged comments and they have not been answered. When somebody says and I am paraphrasing but will use the key word... "LHO carried a large bag into the TSBD". I challenge the statement by asking who saw LHO carry the large bag? Actually quite simple. Then the entire element gets dragged across the forum like broom in a barn. I have not read an answer to my question. This is not shifting the burden of proof, it is merely asking someone to have the termerity to stand behind their statement. I will give you the answer: Nobody saw LHO carry a large bag into the TSBD. Only two individuals in the world ever witnessed LHO carrying a bag that day... Wes Frazier and his sister. Both of them gave a dimension that did not exceed 27". Nobody but the WC provided the word "large" or a word to that effect; I think "bulky" could also have been used. This is why the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

As for the "rifle bag" (a bag that was 36" long) the chain of possession was totally compromised no matter how many people saw it laying on the floor. First, there was no photo taken at the crime scene and as you could read through the testimony... there are as many versions of the bag as there are Detectives who were at the scene. Second, when the bag was returned with a palm print that was not initially "discovered" by the Dallas Police, the bag was permanently altered due to the silver nitrate process. This, by definition, was a destructive test and completely altered the bag. Since nobody could identify the bag as being the original bag, another bag was made up and shown to Wes and his sister. In short, Wes Frazier stood by his original testimony and said the bag that LHO carried was no greater than 27". So there was never a linkage between this bag and the rifle. Yet, others wanted me to comment on how the bag got there... and that is not for me to say as I do not claim anything in regards to that bag.