On Speculation

[Greg Parker]

Jon has raised the issue of speculation as a means of shrugging off or trivializing new information I'll be rolling out this year. It's a common issue, and I can understand his trepidation. He doesn't know me, and there are some absolutely shocking examples of speculation regarding this case.

Here are some definitions of "speculation" from the web and no doubt, there are others:

the contemplation or consideration of some subject:

to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.

2.

a single instance or process of consideration.

3.

a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation:

These speculations are impossible to verify.

4.

conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise:

a report based on speculation rather than facts.

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation. The WC used it by it by the bucket load. Every single book on the case has used it.

People can weigh the supporting evidence and citations and make up their own minds.

Jon himself is speculating that there must have been a second Oswald. He is basing this on the erroneous belief that it isn't humanly possibly to learn Russian as quickly as Lee Oswald did. I have provided evidence that others have indeed done so. Jon remains skeptical. So be it. The "two Oswald" theory seems to act like an aphrodisiac for some.

In my own weighing of evidence I use the "balance of probability" test. This is the standard used in civil courts and some other legal settings. This means that the evidence is strong enough to suggest something is more likely to have happened than not. Such is the case with Lee Oswald's recruitment.

I don't know what Jon's own standards are, but if his dismissal of speculation by me is any guide, no one will ever be able to solve this case to his satisfaction. The smoking gun document just doesn't exist. Dismissing speculation before even knowing what the evidence is, or under what test it has been weighed, is something I would expect from others here. From following Jon's post, I thought he was above that type of casual affront to decency and common sense.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Thomas Graves]

Jon has raised the issue of speculation as a means of shrugging off or trivializing new information I'll be rolling out this year. It's a common issue, and I can understand his trepidation. He doesn't know me, and there are some absolutely shocking examples of speculation regarding this case.

Here are some definitions of "speculation" from the web and no doubt, there are others:

the contemplation or consideration of some subject:

to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.

2.

a single instance or process of consideration.

3.

a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation:

These speculations are impossible to verify.

4.

conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise:

a report based on speculation rather than facts.

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation. The WC used it by it by the bucket load. Every single book on the case has used it.

People can weigh the supporting evidence and citations and make up their own minds.

Jon himself is speculating that there must have been a second Oswald. He is basing this on the erroneous belief that it isn't humanly possibly to learn Russian as quickly as Lee Oswald did. I have provided evidence that others have indeed done so. Jon remains skeptical. So be it. The "two Oswald" theory seems to act like an aphrodisiac for some.

In my own weighing of evidence I use the "balance of probability" test. This is the standard used in civil courts and some other legal settings. This means that the evidence is strong enough to suggest something is more likely to have happened than not. Such is the case with Lee Oswald's recruitment.

I don't know what Jon's own standards are, but if his dismissal of speculation by me is any guide, no one will ever be able to solve this case to his satisfaction. The smoking gun document just doesn't exist. Dismissing speculation before even knowing what the evidence is, or under what test it has been weighed, is something I would expect from others here. From following Jon's post, I thought he was above that type of casual affront to decency and common sense.

Greg,

Regarding Oswald's ability to speak Russian well, I suppose we could speculate that Marina and the other Russians who said he was fluent were exaggerating or outright lying. For what purpose I do not know. But it is a possibility. Maybe they based their evaluations on few simple sentences they heard him speak, like "Hi, My name is Lee Harvey Oswald and I am Marina's future husband."

--Tommy

Edited March 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

Jon has raised the issue of speculation as a means of shrugging off or trivializing new information I'll be rolling out this year. It's a common issue, and I can understand his trepidation. He doesn't know me, and there are some absolutely shocking examples of speculation regarding this case.

Here are some definitions of "speculation" from the web and no doubt, there are others:

the contemplation or consideration of some subject:

to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.

2.

a single instance or process of consideration.

3.

a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation:

These speculations are impossible to verify.

4.

conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise:

a report based on speculation rather than facts.

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation. The WC used it by it by the bucket load. Every single book on the case has used it.

People can weigh the supporting evidence and citations and make up their own minds.

Jon himself is speculating that there must have been a second Oswald. He is basing this on the erroneous belief that it isn't humanly possibly to learn Russian as quickly as Lee Oswald did. I have provided evidence that others have indeed done so. Jon remains skeptical. So be it. The "two Oswald" theory seems to act like an aphrodisiac for some.

In my own weighing of evidence I use the "balance of probability" test. This is the standard used in civil courts and some other legal settings. This means that the evidence is strong enough to suggest something is more likely to have happened than not. Such is the case with Lee Oswald's recruitment.

I don't know what Jon's own standards are, but if his dismissal of speculation by me is any guide, no one will ever be able to solve this case to his satisfaction. The smoking gun document just doesn't exist. Dismissing speculation before even knowing what the evidence is, or under what test it has been weighed, is something I would expect from others here. From following Jon's post, I thought he was above that type of casual affront to decency and common sense.

Greg,

Regarding Oswald's ability to speak Russian well, I suppose we could speculate that Marina and the other Russians who said he was fluent were exaggerating or outright lying. For what purpose I do not know. But it is a possibility. Maybe they based their evaluations on few simple sentences they heard him speak, like "Hi, My name is Lee Harvey Oswald and I am Marina's future husband."

--Tommy

Tommy, we can speculate about all sorts of things, and we are all free to do so. But if we present that speculation via the media, or through other publications, it ideally, should be well supported by facts. I know you know that. Speculation in forums such as this however, should be encouraged so it can be explored to see if it leads anywhere, or can be dismissed.

I am pretty much convinced - based on my study and personal knowledge of AS - and applying that to what we know about Oswald - that Oswald was on the spectrum in the high functioning range. The diagnosis by Hartogs was actually pretty damn good considering he never had the option of testing for AS.

All the evidence that I'm aware of suggests he did learn Russian fluently and quickly. And learning Russian - and Russian culture - were among requirements of the program I will outline in vol 2 of my book.

[Robert Howard]

I believe Greg makes a pretty good point; I don't post near as much as I used to, Greg's absence here ie [ridicule of Prayerman belief, et al & behavior of alleged contemporaries] didn't help matters. He is the single best researcher in the mix, and has been for some time. (Sorry critics of GP) Some of the threads & postings over the last 12 months seem pretty amateurish considering the fact that the available documents and scholarly work are, in effect a database going on 52 years. I am not trying to knock the forum or any of its current members, some of it is due to I guess what you would call the "downside of endless debate over key points" as a lowest common denominator in the quality and professionalism of debate.

It would not be miraculous for some of the former best & brightest to come back to posting here, but that would require a considerable infusion of a higher standard of behavior in postings and savoir faire. I never have understood why that is so difficult, until I recall the adage "don't you know who I am." I still have a lot of "information not currently known." I guess my view is that the forum of days gone by and its quality of dialogue and back & forth went away a long time ago. Thank God for facebook.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Robert Howard

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker,

Please accept my apologies for the speculation comment. It was unwarranted. I'm most interested in seeing the information you'll provide. Thanks in advance.

Switching gears, I don't know whether there were two Oswalds, but I'm inclined to believe there were. It's not the alleged Russian language ability of Marina's husband that inclines me toward this belief. Oswald's language ability is a matter of uncertainty for me. I'm not so sure these days that Marina's husband spoke Russian as well as she said he did. What inclines me toward the belief there were two Oswalds is a collection of things, including (but not limited to) the fact there are photographs supposedly of one person, Marina's husband, that appear to me, regardless of what John Armstrong says, to be of two different individuals. Individuals whose faces are similar but different.

[Thomas Graves]

Robert,

I agree with you that this Forum is not what it was. Facebook discussions are fine, but the threads get lost easily. A forum provides a ready reference.

This Forum has a rich history, and there are some great discussions archived here. Also being added later in the year are the Lancer Archives. We think these things important enough to preserve.

We are open for registration of new members, and if former members wish to return, we would like that as well. Several new members have joined, and are active and productive.

But if someone feels that the current forum is not the quality of the forum as before, and decides not to offer their research, or comments, that is not the fault of the Forum. It is only as good as its members.

This is a platform for all of you. It doesn't cost a thing (although we would love to have some donations). All you have to do is log in, and agree to a couple of rules which are civil. I don't understand why if anyone had any information they wanted to share, or question they wanted to ask, why they wouldn't use a free,widely read utility.

I think it's important to speculate (rationally) and to label it as speculation rather than The Truth. Important to speculate (rationally) because even if you don't have enough evidence to prove your point, someone else might (or may already have) come upon something that can buttress your "theory" while researching something completely different.

In other words, it could lead to a synergistic effect.

Even if someone who is more knowledgeable than you are "shoots you down" with good evidence, this can help the research community in general by discouraging others from going down the same path (or should I say "rabbit hole"?) that you have gone down.

--Tommy

Edited March 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker,

Please accept my apologies for the speculation comment. It was unwarranted. I'm most interested in seeing the information you'll provide. Thanks in advance.

Switching gears, I don't know whether there were two Oswalds, but I'm inclined to believe there were. It's not the alleged Russian language ability of Marina's husband that inclines me toward this belief. Oswald's language ability is a matter of uncertainty for me. I'm not so sure these days that Marina's husband spoke Russian as well as she said he did. What inclines me toward the belief there were two Oswalds is a collection of things, including (but not limited to) the fact there are photographs supposedly of one person, Marina's husband, that appear to me, regardless of what John Armstrong says, to be of two different individuals. Individuals whose faces are similar but different.

It's okay, Jon. Like said... understandable on some levels.

I have some misgivings about three photos as well - - though I believe only one is "spooky" in any way - one other having a wholly "innocent" explanation (quote marks used because it was a deception - but not in a spooky way) and the last being made by Jack White for reasons unknown, but could be guessed at.

[Greg Parker]

Indeed Kathy,

The strength of evidence, not popularity, not feasible ideas, but the actual evidence can prove things.

Robert,

Perhaps some ideas were dismissed because they remain unproven.

Carmine, the notion that ideas should be dismissed simply because they remain unproven is not scientific, nor any sort of way forward. Ideas should only be dismissed when they ARE proven - proven WRONG.

Ideas that are unproven quite often DO have evidence in support... your contention that evidence CAN prove things in no way tells us that it MUST prove things or be dismissed.

I understand your argument against PM. But that argument boils down to equating it to the absurd pixel studies involved in e.g. Badge Man where you must make out a face and police hat or helmet from a blur of pixels. It is apples and avocados. PM does not rely upon a vivid imagination to see a human figure. It quite obviously IS a human figure.

There are far more worthwhile areas to rail against. JVB - which you do. Harvey & Oswald - which you are strangely silent on - are but 2 examples.

[Greg Parker]

Indeed Kathy,

The strength of evidence, not popularity, not feasible ideas, but the actual evidence can prove things.

Robert,

Perhaps some ideas were dismissed because they remain unproven.

Carmine, the notion that ideas should be dismissed simply because they remain unproven is not scientific, nor any sort of way forward. Ideas should only be dismissed when they ARE proven - proven WRONG.

Ideas that are unproven quite often DO have evidence in support... your contention that evidence CAN prove things in no way tells us that it MUST prove things or be dismissed.

I understand your argument against PM. But that argument boils down to equating it to the absurd pixel studies involved in e.g. Badge Man where you must make out a face and police hat or helmet from a blur of pixels. It is apples and avocados. PM does not rely upon a vivid imagination to see a human figure. It quite obviously IS a human figure.

There are far more worthwhile areas to rail against. JVB - which you do. Harvey & Oswald - which you are strangely silent on - are but 2 examples.

Greg,

Not dismissed just because there is no verified evidence, just not proven. Not the truth. We disagree on methods. Proven things can be disproven, yet unproven things can be dismissed without evidence.

Some ideas do have significant evidence, and some have speculation about evidence. I never stated must, thus why it as contention, not definite.

My argument is not just against PM, it is against all photographic claims based on a blurry photo. It is against every claim that has not had a panel of photographic experts or at least a few, and at least one who is not a supporter before the test. As I prior have stated on the PM issue, it is possible, yet unproven. Some claim my standards are too high, yet the reason the photographic record is in the disarray it currently is due to large amounts of claims based on second hand and worse pictures. Not originals, instead images that can be doctored and manipulated over decades are usually offered.

Harvey and Lee I did a while back, as you know I am no fan of that either. I do not begrudge the PM idea, just that it is compelling. I know we know some people who are not fans of my ideas who are quite a bit more vocal than I about what they do not like, in no uncertain terms and lacking couth whatsoever.

I fully agree some deduction and inference based upon significant amounts of evidence has and can be useful in some instances. Yet just pure speculation I am opposed to. Harvey and Lee and JVB both use those means in important areas and look where they ended up.

Carmine, you are simply conflating "not proven" with "not truth" and using that conflation to dismiss valid research.

Without wanting to get into a philosophical debate, "facts" exist regardless of the state of the evidence for them. A chair is a chair - despite - NOT BECAUSE OF - any evidence. I might for example, produce a photograph of a unique chair to bolster my claim that I have such a chair... but that's not proof, since, without further study, it cannot be certain I didn't photoshop a picture of Bigfoot into looking like this unique chair, steal it off the web, or have someone email a photo of the chair.

So how do we deal with this dilemma? A little common sense, and a tried true evidence test.

In the above example... if you investigated and obtained a witness statement that I did indeed take the photo of the chair in my own kitchen, found that the photo had never left my computer and that no one else has access to my computer, and you also found I don't have photoshop, and only very limited knowledge about such programs, you could consider, on the balance of probability, that the photo constitutes proof of my claim.

But say I never had a photo... according to you, the chair ceases to exist - is not "truth" because it's "not proven" to exist.

[Greg Parker]

Carmine, I'm not trying to mischaracterize your POV. I'm trying to understand it.

Even in your clarification, you have said "I am not conflating not proven with not true. If something is not proven, it is not true." I can only repeat that the second sentence is a conflation. Maybe you don't mean it to be, but it is. The shortest, most logically correct statement you can make from those two concepts is "if something is not proven, it may or may not be true." That being the case, it needs to stay on the table until it can be taken off, or glued on as a permanent fixture in the construct.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Robert Prudhomme]

A match made in Heaven!

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

That is your opinion in my view. No conflation is occurring in stating that facts are required to prove something as true. We disagree apparently. However,

you view of my statement is not the problem, the lack of evidence is to support the idea is. I never stated it could not be true, just highly improbable and unproven. There is no reason to rely on it as truth or evidence. I can admit I can be wrong if most evidence supports that, I hope others who support the idea can too.

No Carmine, we apparently agree that facts are required to prove something is true. However, whether you realize it or not, that is not what you have been been saying. Again, I will quote your words "If something is not proven, it is not true." That is quite a different proposition altogether.

[Greg Parker]

A match made in Heaven!

Hey, Bob. Haven't heard from you in a while. Here's a little Aussie wildlife for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgMRIqIh2J4

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL!!! Now THAT was funny!

[Guest Mark Valenti]

If something is not proven, it is not true.

Herein lies the heart of your problem, Carmine. You tie yourself in knots with circuitous verbiage. If something is not proven to YOUR satisfaction, it isn't true.

You weren't at Woodstock. Did it happen? Can you prove it one way or the other? Blurry photos can be faked.

I imagine you at an intersection and you see cars coming through. Someone tells you their light is green. But when you walk to the light, it has turned red. Aha! The light was never green, it's red!

Truth is fixed in time.