Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Since I am in Philosopher (i.e. Epistemologist) mode, I must observe the goofiness here. Royell's "research" is one step above pure unadulterated pareidolia and several steps below Jake Maxwell's photographic essays.

I may be wrong, but I always think Jake's posts are at least slightly "wink wink nudge nudge" tongue-in-cheek. Not entirely, but at least he does seem to have fun with his efforts and to remain steadfastly good-natured in the face of the barbs hurled his way. If I were inclined to invent a Lance sock puppet, it would be someone like Jake who just keeps plowing ahead, amusing himself, and confounding everyone else as to what to make of him.

But not Royell and those like him. No, they are grimly serious. They think they are engaged in cutting-edge research and that the fault is yours if you don't see what they do.

Royell has spotted in the photos and videos that what he calls the Huge Gates may have been open and that a car was parked in front of the TSBD. And that's pretty much it. Everything else is pure pareidolia-level speculation.

The car, Royell says, was a "getaway car." The Huge Gates were "left open" to accommodate the conspirators. The two figures that pretty much everyone else, even other CTers, agrees are Shelley and Lovelady are conspirators en route to a mysterious "boxcar" that lesser researchers have confused with a "passenger" car. I am unable even to follow how this supposedly makes sense in Royell's own mind.

What goes on inside the head of someone who thinks like this? At least to your resident Epistemologist, this question is far more interesting than the supposed bombshell research. What is essentially pareidolia or someone's interpretation of a Rorshach blot becomes "research," "fact" and "theory." In all likelihood, the Huges Gates and car mean precisely nothing insofar as the JFKA are concerned and the two guys are indeed Shelley and Lovelady; to claim more than this 62 years after the event, you would need something far more compelling than "hey, it could be true!"
22
I think what Charles says is on the right track. Across the entire spectrum of Weirdness, as well as political and religious beliefs (both being their own species of Weirdness!), confirmation bias is surely the most difficult pitfall to avoid.

In many areas - the JFKA, UFOs, crop circles, poltergeists, whatever - I don't think I have any confirmation bias at all. I merely find these subjects interesting, but I don't particularly care what the explanation turns out to be or have any great need for a particular explanation to be true.

With something like the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a deity - well, yes, I do have much more of a visceral or emotional involvement and thus a stronger confirmation bias. I try to be doubly careful in reaching convictions in these areas, which is why in discussions and debates with Gee-Whiz True Believer fanatics I am often accused of being a skeptic or debunker when this is not true at all (except in the sense in which everyone should remain a bit skeptical of his own most cherished beliefs). Based on truly vast amounts of study and a fair amount of experience, I have arrived at quite strong convictions in these areas - but not to the point of losing rationality or being unable to see the countervailing arguments.

It's really difficult for me to see how someone would have a strong confirmation bias insofar as the JFKA is concerned. But people clearly do - on both sides of the debate, LN and CT alike. What would be the deep need for the LN narrative or any conspiracy theory to be true, to the extent of this need overwhelming the ability to think rationally? The answer has to be that the JFKA is a critical cog in one's worldview. The explanation for the JFKA must to be "X," and "X" will inevitably mesh with one's overarching worldview. It is in fact the overarching worldview that is determining what "X" will be. I think this has to be the explanation when we see a fanatical LNer or CTer who is wedded to his position like a religious fundie and who regards anything to the contrary as practically a personal insult. You're not just challenging his position on the JFKA; you're challenging who he is, what he thinks the world is all about.

And yet ... can confirmation bias really be the explanation when we see someone as intelligent and educated as Michael say the preposterous things he says in regard to the JFKA? As far as I can tell, he says nothing comparably preposterous in his writings about Mormonism, Intellgent Design, the Civil War or the Shroud of Turin. He has to know at some level that the conspiracy he posits is a complete fantasy, impossible in the real world.

I'm thoroughly puzzled. If I were to give him and those like him more credit than "they simply lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to the JFKA," I would say that making these preposterous claims must serve some agenda that isn't clear to me. "I'm just going to shovel so much conspiracy sh*t that sooner or later they'll have to reopen the investigation." Maybe, but this seems a stretch as an explanation for the amount of time and effort that Michael puts into his conspiracy sh*t.

It's a puzzle! Michael, of course, would say he simply follows the evidence and applies the same critical-thinking skills to the JFKA that he applies to his other interests and that the LNers and even I are the ones being ruled by our confirmation biases. He even categorizes me as a fanatical LNer because there can be no shades of gray in the war of Good (CT) versus Evil (LN) in which he sees himself as being engaged.

I remember a debate on some religion forum where atheists made the argument that only magical-thinking dolts believe in a deity. Wait, I said, many of the greatest philosophers, scientists and other academics who have ever lived, right up to the level of Nobel Laureates, have been and are devout theists. Do you seriously think they abandon the critical-thinking skills that have carried them to the pinnacles of their fields and turn into magical-thinking dolts when it comes to their assessment of theism versus atheism? "Yes, we do," came the predictable answer. "They are victims of their confirmation biases." (But the atheists, you see, are not! They are immune to confirmation biases! And on it goes ...)



23
No direct shot from Oswald could have made that/there damage to the glass, when the needed angles are inspected.
No ricochet from Oswald could have made that damage, or it could, but would be an impossible ricochet when the needed angles are inspected.
So, the damage to the glass confirms a 2nd shooter.
24
Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:

https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0

We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.

Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.

Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.

This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.

Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.

How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.



I think the difference is that an open-minded attitude allows some of us to evolve; while others have closed their minds to anything other than what they want to believe in…



25
Surprised to hear he was a member of AFIO. Will definitely be getting his book Brothers In Arms.
26
Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:

https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0

We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.

Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.

Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.

This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.

Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.

How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.
27
On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 28 with Gus Russo.

Gus and I discuss Cuba, the Kennedy brothers, and the Castro brothers. And what happened in Mexico City with Lee Harvey Oswald.

28
   The "2 Guys" in the Couch still frame above are moving down the Elm St Extension directly toward a string of "Passenger" train cars in the background. The "3 Tramps" were allegedly found hiding inside a "boxcar" in the Rail Road Yard. Yet, there is a photo of the 3 Tramps being escorted by DPD down this same Elm St Extension. Both the "2 Guys" on the Couch still frame above, and the "3 Tramps" Photo, show all of these individuals to be directly in line with the same string of "passenger" train cars. There are No Images of a "boxcar" inside the Rail Road Yard following the assassination.

pOInt beINg?
29
Just wondering.  An argument continues about the condition of the rear of JFK’s head after the shooting.  Some witnesses said it was blown out, with a large fist sized hole.  These witnesses include Clint Hill, multiple nurses and ER physicians at Parkland Hospital, and the mortician who prepped the body for burial.  Others dispute this, such as the autopsy pathologists.  The autopsy photos show no such wound on the only photo of the rear of the head we have.  Did anyone who saw the rear of JFK’s head after the shooting describe it contemporaneously as “intact”, “whole”, “undamaged”, “normal”, “pristine” or “untouched” or similar words?
30
The car was always there but the ladies in front are blocking most of it.
The first image below is from the above photo gallery and you can see some of the car next to the lady with the folded arms and you can see the roof a little bit to her right.
I believe the car to our left is directly in front of this car and as can be seen the perspective angle relatively shortens the length and when approximately sized, fits well within the block of obscuring ladies.



Royell's Car on the extreme left and a car directly behind, shows that the car in the above image was behind Royell's car.



In this Couch frame, the end of the car is a good match compared to the folded arm lady and the roof section as compared to the ladies in Wiegman is a similar height.



JohnM

   The "2 Guys" in the Couch still frame above are moving down the Elm St Extension directly toward a string of "Passenger" train cars in the background. The "3 Tramps" were allegedly found hiding inside a "boxcar" in the Rail Road Yard. Yet, there is a photo of the 3 Tramps being escorted by DPD down this same Elm St Extension. Both the "2 Guys" on the Couch still frame above, and the "3 Tramps" Photo, show all of these individuals to be directly in line with the same string of "passenger" train cars. There are No Images of a "boxcar" inside the Rail Road Yard following the assassination. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10