Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Movies, music, creative arts

Recent Profile Visitors

2,937 profile views

Denny Zartman's Achievements


Proficient (10/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

  1. The motorcade was 5 minutes behind schedule. Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25 pm, the time the motorcade was scheduled to pass. The rifle was misidentified as a 7.65 Mauser by authorities, one of which had worked at a store selling rifles. The make and caliber of the rifle was also misidentified despite the fact that the Mannlicher Carcano had "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal" engraved on it. Oswald's prints did not show up on the rifle until after his death. Nitrate tests on his cheek were negative. According to the official story, he was seen on the 2nd floor 2 minutes after the assassination, not sweaty, not out of breath, not panicked. And you think it's more credible than he was the assassin than not? The guy who stopped for a Coke after murdering the president, and the guy who went to the movies after murdering a cop. You and I must have very different definitions of the word "credibility."
  2. JFK's head goes back and to the left, allegedly because of a shot from behind. What could be less credible than a violation of the basic laws of physics?
  3. Three JFK's performing an autopsy on himself. Okay. How are these images enhancing our understanding of the truth?
  4. Imho, I don't think it's one answer that applies to all participants. Prior to the assassination, for the upper echelon the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs probably made the case for them that JFK was a "danger." After the assassination, I think many of them that weren't involved ahead of time went along with it believing it was a Soviet/Cuban plot, and that by assisting in covering it up they were helping the world avoid nuclear war.
  5. You claim there are very simple and easy fixes to prevent AI from making up a false answer to a question, yet the answer it gave to a very simple question was still false. Why should we trust AI if the programmers can't already program in what you describe as simple and easy fail-safes that would say "I don't know" in a circumstance where it doesn't know an answer? According to you, the fix is so simple and easy that you can dismiss concerns about it in two sentences, and what I'm guessing are a few lines of code. Yet these fixes were not implemented. Are the programmers stupid? Is that really it? If code to avoid false answers is as simple and easy as you claim, why wasn't it already there? More importantly: Why is avoiding false answers not already a priority for AI? I'm no AI expert, but I fail to see how false answers help anyone. And you're not really inspiring confidence in overall AI programming if there exist super simple fixes that apparently didn't even occur to the programmers to add. In my opinion, false answers are just going to lead to more confusion, uncertainty, and wasted time. If we ask AI a complex question for which we can't independently verify the answer, how can we trust any answer that it gives? We just have to trust that the programmer got the programming right? Or do we have to comb through the code ourselves?
  6. It's clear you want to believe in the potential of AI. I can't stop you. It will inevitably be used in research anyway. But the question asked on Saturday "Has Sunday's game been played yet?" is not a difficult one at all. Yet, the AI said three things: The game had been played already, the 49ers won it, and the exact score of the game. All three wrong. Not just wrong, but coming up with imaginary facts like the final score to support the incorrect answer. What if someone asks an AI to calculate the trajectory of a bullet and since it doesn't know, it just makes up an answer, including impressive extraneous information? Then we'll have people like us arguing over it for years because we assume the AI is better at complex calculations than we are, so it must likely be right. As I see it, AI wants to please. If it doesn't have an answer, it will try to give you one anyway. If AI is asked to scan a photo of the fence line for human looking figures, how do we know for certain it won't make them up, since it knows that's what we're looking for?
  7. Do you have any medical experience of your own in observing and treating gunshot wounds in person? These people saw and treated gunshot wounds every day, and, in my opinion, it's a bit insulting to them to imply that they couldn't tell a bullet entrance wound from a fragment exit wound. And I'll never in my life understand why so many people on this forum are willing to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many problems with them need to be pointed out before we reasonably start treating them with skepticism instead of the reflexive "I'm going to trust these over the witnesses observations" attitude that I seem to see here every day?
  8. This is a very important damning account from two witnesses in the motorcade, and in my view strongly supports the assertion that there were shots fired from in front of presidential limousine.
  9. The day before Superbowl 58, someone asked an AI chatbot for a prediction. The AI said it couldn't predict the game because, according to the AI, it had already been played, and that San Francisco won. It even gave the final score. I'm one of those people who thinks a wrong answer is worse than no answer, and it certainly seems that if AI doesn't know the correct answer to a question, it does it's level best to give you an answer anyway, regardless of accuracy - or even possibility.
  10. "...and a large wound to the head, in the right posterior area." I'm sure Dr. Perry meant to say "top of the head" didn't he? I mean, a doctor who was there saying wildly inaccurate stuff like the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area... people might get the totally inaccurate idea that the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area. That would be silly. I sure hope someone who wasn't there and had no medical experience will correct the record and tell us all that Dr. Perry didn't say what he said and that he didn't see what he saw.
  • Create New...