Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 7689 times)

Online Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
The Fundamental Problem
« on: January 23, 2019, 07:28:39 PM »
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn’t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it’s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ‘I/they know what I/they see/saw’).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ‘talking heads’ (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don’t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed—which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn’t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it’s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

JFK Assassination Forum

The Fundamental Problem
« on: January 23, 2019, 07:28:39 PM »


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2019, 07:54:25 PM »


     Regarding the alleged LN's preferring "Experts" and "Evidence", it is impossible to accept that and then manage to somehow get around the JFK Back Wound as notated by an "expert" and "Evidenced" on the (1) Autopsy Face Sheet and (2) Autopsy Photos. That Back entrance wound fired at a downward angle exiting via the throat flies in the face of the alleged Expert/Evidence LN Bar.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2019, 08:39:04 PM »
  Regarding the alleged LN's preferring "Experts" and "Evidence", it is impossible to accept that and then manage to somehow get around the JFK Back Wound as notated by an "expert" and "Evidenced" on the (1) Autopsy Face Sheet and (2) Autopsy Photos. That Back entrance wound fired at a downward angle exiting via the throat flies in the face of the alleged Expert/Evidence LN Bar.

In regards Dillon's "The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case":

To wit: It's been long apparent that you lot don't realize that 'face sheet' drawings are preprinted and generic. That amounts to a visual shorthand, not meant to reflect the exact measurements taken from the body itself* A measurement, by the way, found on said face sheet... and remaining at the 14x14cm location to this day.

*Kennedy had square shoulders, while the face sheet in question clearly shows sloped shoulders.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 09:15:49 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2019, 08:39:04 PM »


Offline Tom Scully

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2019, 08:50:31 PM »
Dillon, this is not meant as a specific criticism of your choice. It is natural to observe what
others are doing and simply do what seems to have worked for others, but....
IF EVERYBODY DOES IT..... (bTW, you have the ability to edit your title, to some degree,
via modify option of your OP.)

If you don't appreciate click bait titles like this thread's and the thread titled, Theory-In-Progress,
stop rewarding the selfish (manipulative) title choices the authors of baiting titles make,
by taking their bait by viewing or worse, replying to such threads.

I am not gonna read the opening post. If you want a crappy forum, keep taking the bait
and encouraging this practice.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 08:54:41 PM by Tom Scully »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2019, 09:12:52 PM »
It's been long apparent that you lot don't realize that 'face sheet' drawings are preprinted and generic. That amounts to a visual shorthand, not meant to reflect the exact measurements taken from the body itself*

A measurement, by the way, found on said face sheet... and remaining at the 14x14cm location to this day.

*Kennedy had square shoulders, while the face sheet in question clearly shows sloped shoulders.

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 09:16:12 PM by Royell Storing »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2019, 09:12:52 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2019, 09:36:29 PM »
      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 09:42:18 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2019, 09:59:30 PM »
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn’t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it’s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ‘I/they know what I/they see/saw’).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ‘talking heads’ (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don’t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed—which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn’t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it’s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

Dillon,

A rather decent post overall. Though, I do take issue with one of your assertions. You refer to "the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin." I have no idea as to what Canning's pseudoscience might be but I suspect with Guinn that you are alluding to Neutron Activation Analysis. NAA is not a pseudoscience. Guinn's use of it is questionable but the science itself is not. At least, not that I'm aware of. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2019, 09:59:30 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Thomas Arthur Vallee
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2019, 10:01:46 PM »
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn’t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it’s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ‘I/they know what I/they see/saw’).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ‘talking heads’ (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don’t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed—which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn’t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it’s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum. :)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 10:03:15 PM by Jack Trojan »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2019, 10:02:30 PM »
14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2019, 10:02:30 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Thomas Arthur Vallee
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2019, 10:06:44 PM »
14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2019, 10:06:44 PM »