Occam's Razor, and the memo

[rikzilla]

Occam once again lays bare the facts:

To accept CBS's insistence the four documents from the early 1970s are authentic, you would have to believe the following:

• 
  [1] That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."
  
  [2] That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.
  
  [3] That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.
  
  [4] That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.
  
  [5] That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.
  
  [6] That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.
  
  [7] That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

Now if you can't accept all that, there's another side. To believe the documents are forgeries, you have to believe this:

• 
  [1] The documents were typed recently using Microsoft Word, which produces documents that are exact copies of the CBS documents.
  
  [2] There's no number 2. All you have to believe is number 1.

Fake but true! Gimmee a break!

-z

 

[Suddenly]

Fake but true! Gimmee a break!

-z

Source of the quote?

Are you suggesting that a a claim contained in a memorandum found to be forged can be safely assumed to be false?

If not, what impact does establishing this memorandum as a forgery have on whether the claim contained is true?

 

[rikzilla]

If the memo's facts are true, then why the fake memo? Why not just produce the real memo?

C'mon Suds...you're a lawyer. Would you go to court with a fake document? Is a fake document ever evidence....other than evidence that it's been faked that is?

-z

 

[crimresearch]

C'mon Suds...you're a lawyer. Would you go to court with a fake document?

I predict he will plead the 5th...

 

[Suddenly]

If the memo's facts are true, then why the fake memo? Why not just produce the real memo?

Not much of an answer. This makes a whole bunch of assumptions that are not established. At present we assume is that the memo is forged. The rest is circular speculation that makes rather large assumptions about who and why it was forged and released.

You are starting with one reasonable assumption (forgery) and launching into assumptions that are complete speculation. The memo being forged in and of itself does nothing but make the memo useless to determine the underlying claim. No more, no less. When the reasons for the forgery become known, then the questions you raise may become important.

C'mon Suds...you're a lawyer. Would you go to court with a fake document? Is a fake document ever evidence....other than evidence that it's been faked that is?

-z

I have made no claim that the memorandum is true. Only that the memorandum's status as being forged in and of itself has no bearing on the truthfulness of the claims contained therein.

Once it is declared forged, it is worthless. If more is known about the origins the act of forgery could be put into context and other conclusions drawn. Until then the memorandum has no effect as to the claim itself. So it is reasonable to allow that in fact the memorandum could be forged but the claim prove true.

 

[rikzilla]

That was a mouthful...even for a lawyer. I'll interpret for all us lay people out there: (What Suds meant by all that was that the memo was fake, but true.)

Now, Michael Moore's movie is a fine example of the fake but true mentality. We've heard it all before in defense of the fabrications in F911..."sure he took it out of context"...."ok it's edited"..."BUT IT'S TRUE!!!"

Right....

Let me ask you this Suds,...if it's the truth then why fake a memo in the first place? Why not use a real piece of evidence? If it's true there must be evidence....right?

Mr. Moore asserts that the Bush admin has been directly linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. To bolster this he uses this quote in F911:

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed
there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The
audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on
Nov. 28, 2003:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened
on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself
and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about
what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that
lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.
This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that
is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam
from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it
for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central
front because, if and when, and we will, we change the
nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic
and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will
begin to change the Middle East...."

The real question is why Moore would use this out of context quote? Possibly because there IS NO REAL QUOTE from anyone in the Bush admin making this claim??

I think that's why the fake memo was produced....because they have nothing to prove their version of THE TRUTH.

Fake documentaries by Michael Moore were bad enough...now we have fake news from CBS. What's next???

-z

 

[Suddenly]

That was a mouthful...even for a lawyer. I'll interpret for all us lay people out there:(What Suds meant by all that was that the memo was fake, but true.)

This is low. I'm sorry that you have poor reading comprehension skills but this does not excuse this kind of shameful tactic. At best I said that such a conclusion is not beyond reason given present data.

Now, Michael Moore's movie is a fine example of the fake but true mentality. We've heard it all before in defense of the fabrications in F911..."sure he took it out of context"...."ok it's edited"..."BUT IT'S TRUE!!!"

Nowhere near what I posted. In fact, lets see if you can at least understand this sentence:

I have made no claim that the memorandum is true. Only that the memorandum's status as being forged in and of itself has no bearing on the truthfulness of the claims contained therein.

How hard is that to understand? Am I grossly overestimating your ability to read by thinking that you could at least not interpret this to mean the opposite of what it says? I find it hard to believe that this is simple ignorance.

Let me ask you this Suds,...if it's the truth then why fake a memo in the first place?

Asked and answered. We have no idea why it was forged. You are just making a guess no better than a guess that it was forged because someone thought this was true and didn't have evidence and decided to make some up.

For example, someone who thought Clinton killed Vince Foster just types up a memorandum in Clinton's name that says Clinton did it. Turns out this person was a crackpot. This does nothing to prove Clinton did not kill Vince Foster. Is that hard to comprehend?

Why not use a real piece of evidence? If it's true there must be evidence....right?

No. As a logical assertion, that evidence must exist if something is true is invalid. In the present case we have the problem where the forger would have to have access to evidence if it does exist.

So for your implication to stand, it must be not only that evidence must exist, it must be that the forger had access to same. On top of that this assumes that the forger acts reasonably in the first place. Speculation upon speculation.

Mr. Moore asserts that the Bush admin has been directly linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. To bolster this he uses this quote in F911:


The real question is why Moore would use this out of context quote? Possibly because there IS NO REAL QUOTE from anyone in the Bush admin making this claim??

I think your conclusion is speculative for the reasons expressed above, but in this case it is less speculative as you have at least some data as to who created the communication and why. This is data you lack in the memo example.

I think that's why the fake memo was produced....because they have nothing to prove their version of THE TRUTH.

And that is your guess. It may or may not prove correct as it rests on a multitude of assumptions with no supporting data. Once it is known who forged the memo and why, your guess may turn out to be more or less in line with the data.

My whole point is that the memo being forged, in and of itself, has no bearing on the truth of the claims in the memo.

Here is a memo I just wrote out on my desk:

I am not a moron.

signed,

Rikzilla

Obviously this is a forgery....

you take it from there....

 

[rockoon]

I have some speculation to make:


There is no known evidence that shows that what was in the forged documents might be true.

My reasoning is that if such evidence exists it would have been presented before, during, or after the forged documents were presented.



Now I think back on some of the things I learned about statistics and how they are used to back up a theory. I do this because it relates to this topic.

Just as with statistical studies, the accusers against Bush have started with a theory and have since been trying to collect evidence suggesting that the theory might be correct. But unlike in (for example) legitimate clinical trials, the lack of finding any evidence supporting the theory has not stopped the study.

I, however, can apply the correct logic to the puzzle even if the Bush detractors refuse to. When you attempt to subtantiate a theory and can find no evidence that does just that, you have learned something about the theory. The longer you attempt to substantiate the theory but cannot do so, the more likely it is that the theory is unsound.

 

[Suddenly]

I have some speculation to make:


There is no known evidence that shows that what was in the forged documents might be true.

My reasoning is that if such evidence exists it would have been presented before, during, or after the forged documents were presented.



Now I think back on some of the things I learned about statistics and how they are used to back up a theory. I do this because it relates to this topic.

Just as with statistical studies, the accusers against Bush have started with a theory and have since been trying to collect evidence suggesting that the theory might be correct. But unlike in (for example) legitimate clinical trials, the lack of finding any evidence supporting the theory has not stopped the study.

I, however, can apply the correct logic to the puzzle even if the Bush detractors refuse to. When you attempt to subtantiate a theory and can find no evidence that does just that, you have learned something about the theory. The longer you attempt to substantiate the theory but cannot do so, the more likely it is that the theory is unsound.

This assumes that those who created the memo are the same that were trying to collect data.

This is where it all falls apart or at least where the speculation is weakest...

 

[BPSCG]

I have to agree with Suddenly here, even though I think he unfairly takes a swipe at me in another thread (am I "the Virginian" you were referring to?). The fact that the documents are phony does not prove that the allegations in them are false.

Nor does it prove that they are true.

They simply prove that someone made up some phony documents. The allegations may be true, or they may be false. Nobody's produced any definitive evidence either way.

They also don't prove that CBS was complicit in making them, or that the DNC did, or the Kerry campaign.

What's been proven is that they are phony, and that CBS didn't do their job.

If the DNC and/or the Kerry campaign end up with their fingerprints on the documents, this will be devastating. You can see the 527 commercials now:
- Nixon morphs into Kerry;
- Hillary talking about the "misplaced" White House travel office documents, back to back with whatever Democrat spokesman has to do the explaining over the phony Bush docs.

 

[Suddenly]

I have to agree with Suddenly here, even though I think he unfairly takes a swipe at me in another thread (am I "the Virginian" you were referring to?). The fact that the documents are phony does not prove that the allegations in them are false.

(I was swiping at Lister but there is a flame war thread you may want to look at...)

Nor does it prove that they are true.

They simply prove that someone made up some phony documents. The allegations may be true, or they may be false. Nobody's produced any definitive evidence either way.

They also don't prove that CBS was complicit in making them, or that the DNC did, or the Kerry campaign.

What's been proven is that they are phony, and that CBS didn't do their job.

If the DNC and/or the Kerry campaign end up with their fingerprints on the documents, this will be devastating. You can see the 527 commercials now:
- Nixon morphs into Kerry;
- Hillary talking about the "misplaced" White House travel office documents, back to back with whatever Democrat spokesman has to do the explaining over the phony Bush docs.

 

[BPSCG]

(I was swiping at Lister but there is a flame war thread you may want to look at...) [/B]

Thanks for the invite, but I have zero interest in pissing contests.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh, but you simply MUST...the thread in Flame Wars on Virginia and Lower Pennsylvania is priceless...



Suddenly is correct...it is a non sequitur to mix the forgery aspects of the memos with the contents...follow either aspect to a logical conclusion if you will. but the trail doesn't end here.

 

[Suddenly]

Thanks for the invite, but I have zero interest in pissing contests.

You should read it just to learn all that I have revealed about the "Virginian Menace." Perhaps it will inspire you to apply for assylum in Best Virginia, like smart Virginians everywhere...

 

[rikzilla]

You should read it just to learn all that I have revealed about the "Virginian Menace." Perhaps it will inspire you to apply for assylum in Best Virginia, like smart Virginians everywhere...

That's it! You bahh-stahhd! you created that fake memo about me simply because I live in the glorious state of Virginia!

Well now, I do acceed to your point on the content...it may well be true, but now is so hopelessly suspect because of the false memo that Kerry would do well to drop the entire subject. However, I do not think my speculation baseless...if indeed there is real evidence of GWB's shirking of his Guard duties I'd have expected to see it long ago....and certainly by now.

But the motives and identity of the unknown forger have a great deal to say about the subject...hopefully CBS will do the right thing and give him or her up.

-z

 

[Brown]

The notion of documents being "fake but true" has come up before. Perhaps the most famous episode involved doctors' notes pertaining to the autopsy of President Kennedy that were said to be faked, and of questionable content. It tuned out that the documents were not the originals, but were reproductions made by the doctor after his original notes were stained with Kennedy's blood. The doctor did not want his original notes to be taken by those seeking mementos, so he burned them. The documents presented as evidence were therefore not the doctor's genuine notes made during the autopsy, but their content was still asserted to be true.

This was of course not a case of deliberate forgery.

In the early 1970s, Clifford Irving published a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. The fake was seriously considered to be genuine for a while, until Hughes himself came out of seclusion (by phone) to call it a fake. Irving's book, though fake, included some true material (much of it stolen from other sources, and some of it true even though Hughes himself denied it!).

 

[BPSCG]

You should read it just to learn all that I have revealed about the "Virginian Menace." Perhaps it will inspire you to apply for assylum in Best Virginia, like smart Virginians everywhere...

I did see that one, when I was really bored one day and wanted to see what "Flame War" was about.

Explains a lot, actually.

 

[corplinx]

At present we assume is that the memo is forged. [/B]

Its more than just a mere assumption. I assume its forged the same way I assume the Fji Mermaid was a hoax.

 

[rockoon]

This assumes that those who created the memo are the same that were trying to collect data.

This is where it all falls apart or at least where the speculation is weakest...

No it doesn't. It assumes nothing of the sort.

The Bush Detractors began with the theory that he DID go A.W.O.L., that he DID NOT perform his duties, and so forth.

The fake memos are irrelevant to my point. I only noted, in regards to said memos, that:

neither before, during, nor after the fake memos were "released" has ANY evidence that he went A.W.O.L. or neglect to perform his duties surfaced.

Since they have been searching for quite some time for evidence but still cannot present any, we have learned something about the theory.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Regardless of the opinion regarding the memos or the facts underlying Bush's service, Ockham's razor really does not apply.

We are talking about humans and their motives/actions. That sometimes means that the simplest solution is not the best.

It is a good general rule to look for what is most likely. In other words, it is usually correct that the simpler solution = the most likely to be correct one.

But that is not what Ockham's razor actually says, per se, and I don't think that Ockham intended it to be used to determine what humans -- devious, non-simple creatures -- do or have done.