Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

My contribution to the discussion about the future of this Forum

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence.

Not in this (JFK) case, it doesn't (if you're a conspiracy theorist, that is). Many CTers think it's ALL fake evidence --- both the actual physical evidence is fake/phony/planted/manufactured (per many CTers) and many of the photos are fake/phony (per many CTers) as well.

So if you're a conspiracy theorist in this case, nothing trumps anything (except the CTer's vivid imagination, which seems to trump everything under the sun---even Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual and guilty-like actions on Nov. 21st and 22nd, 1963).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Rago said:

I didn't ask you if there was a contradiction, I asked you which carried more weight, the physical evidence or the photographic evidence? The discussion is about how do we "weigh" the evidence. "Weighing" the evidence is not microanalyzing the evidence. It is part of the process of finding the facts.

You mis-represent what the motorcade photos show.

Since the motorcade photos don't show any defects in the clothing, the physical evidence carries more weight because it simply has more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Not in this (JFK) case, it doesn't (if you're a conspiracy theorist, that is). Many CTers think it's ALL fake evidence --- both the actual "physical evidence" and (most) of the "photos" as well.

So if you're a CTer in this case, nothing trumps anything (except the CTer's vivid imagination, which trumps everything under the sun).

David Von Pein & Pat Speer in 2003 -- JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up 2 inches, so the bullet holes in the clothes aligned with T1.

David Von Pein & Pat Speer in 2014 -- JFK's clothing wasn't bunched up, so the bullet holes in the clothes aligned with T1.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Rago said:

Ok, what does the motorcade photo show?

On Elm St., a fraction of an inch of elevated jacket and a jacket collar in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

It is the physical evidence that provides these photos with the most accurate context.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

In the past few days, I saw people here saying the solution to this Forum's problems is to give more space to the most astonishing theories on JFK assassination. The more a theory is astonishing, the more it has the right to be here. On the other side, I saw people saying just the opposite: the more a theory is near to what the WC said, the more it has the right to be here.

What about, instead, an obligation to give evidence of what someone says, just like Jim DiEugenio, John Kowalski, Paul Brancato, Steve Thomas, David Josephs and others already do every day? It would be so simple ...

Paz, I'm still waiting for Jim DiEugenio to provide evidence of a T1 back wound.

Just say'n...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Paz,

Good suggestion, though even with evidence there are those who would call a theory "crap."

 

Ron,

 

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.


Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.


I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

 

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how a thread gets hijacked, and I warned about it a few posts ago. First its Rago, then Mr Factually incorrect, CV with Epstein's jacket.

If someone has nothing to say about the topic, then why comment on the thread?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James DiEugenio said:

This is how a thread gets hijacked, and I warned about it a few posts ago.

If someone has nothing to say about the topic, then why comment on the thread?

 

I am saying something about the topic.

Paz wrote of " an obligation to give evidence " -- sometimes you act as if that doesn't include you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note how CV cut this out: "First its Rago, then Mr Factually incorrect, CV with Epstein's jacket."

 

Please show me how the first post on this refers to Epstein's jacket.

First Rago, and then CV--just as I said.  Now this thread is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

In the past few days, I saw people here saying the solution to this Forum's problems is to give more space to the most astonishing theories on JFK assassination. The more a theory is astonishing, the more it has the right to be here. On the other side, I saw people saying just the opposite: the more a theory is near to what the WC said, the more it has the right to be here.

 

Paz,

 

Sometimes, just the sheer number of theories that are out there, are used to dismiss all of them.

 

Here is an example. This was on CNN on Tuesday, March 20, 2018...

"5 things you may not know about JFK's assassination"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/jfk-assassination-5-things/index.html

 

"Whether you were alive at the time or not, you probably know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President, only to be fatally gunned down by Jack Ruby two days later.

You probably also know there are hundreds of conspiracy theories about who was behind the assassination, and whether Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was another shooter on the infamous grassy knoll."

 

One statement is a statement of fact. The other is just "hundreds of conspiracy theories."

 

Steve Thomas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

On Elm St., a fraction of an inch of elevated jacket and a jacket collar in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

It is the physical evidence that provides these photos with the most accurate context.

We need the photograph to show us both the orientation of JFK's body and his jacket at the time he was shot. Without the photograph all we have is a jacket with a hole in it.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, that would be nice I think.

Since most of us would tend to think the most evidence one has for one's ideas then the more credible they would appear to be.

But if one is to have an open forum--unlike DPF--then one has to allow people like DVP on the one hand, and PT and Mike Rago on the other, even though their ideas simply lack any credible evidence, let alone proof, e.g. see my review of Caufield's book.

As they say, you have to maintain minority rights.  

This is the post that started this thread on its hijacked course.

Mr. DiEugenio went out of his way to attack 3 other members with false assertions. Does he really think that all of DVP's ideas lack any credible evidence? Of course not, there is credible evidence to suspect Oswald. There is also credible evidence to suspect a gunman on the knoll who used a handgun(not a rifle) and credible evidence to suspect Zapruder.

When a member makes a post in a thread, and in that post he attacks other members, then those other members are going to respond.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Note how CV cut this out: "First its Rago, then Mr Factually incorrect, CV with Epstein's jacket."

 

Jim, you have a responsibility as a respected historian with a wide following to present evidence.

There are people here who buy what you say like it's "gospel."

When you try to belittle the physical evidence you are not acting as a responsible historian.

Quote

Please show me how the first post on this refers to Epstein's jacket.

Epstein's jacket?  Do you think authors own the evidence they write about?

If that were the case, it'd be Salandria's jacket.

Quote

 

First Rago, and then CV--just as I said.  Now this thread is gone.

You have an obligation as a respected historian to cite facts and evidence.

Quite on-topic.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Ron,

 

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.


Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.


I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

 

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

 

Steve Thomas

Ron,

 

Here's another one looking at it from a different angle:

The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

 

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

 

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...