Gerald Posner ROASTED in JFK poll

[Lori Spencer]

That sweet moment when “Oswald acted alone” author Gerald Posner (“Case Closed”) xxxxs around & finds out in his own Twitter poll. 😆 
 

The comments section is pretty fun reading: 

Gerald Posner: JFK Poll

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Lori.

[Lori Spencer]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Lori.

Made my day! 😆 

[Paul Baker]

To place any significance on the result of any such poll represents a fundamental logical fallacy. This poll, like any other, proves approximately nothing. If you asked any one person of that 80% why they believe there was a conspiracy, in all likelihood you'll get the answer: 'Because there just had to be', or 'Have you seen JFK?', or both.

A preponderance of conspiracy-oriented thinking, literature and media will guarantee similar results for years to come. Of course, it won't stop these polls being held, and it won't stop most conspiracy theorists quoting their results in the mistaken belief that they prove something.

This madness will never end!

[Guest]

Great to see. 

[Bob Ness]

18 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

To place any significance on the result of any such poll represents a fundamental logical fallacy. This poll, like any other, proves approximately nothing. If you asked any one person of that 80% why they believe there was a conspiracy, in all likelihood you'll get the answer: 'Because there just had to be', or 'Have you seen JFK?', or both.

A preponderance of conspiracy-oriented thinking, literature and media will guarantee similar results for years to come. Of course, it won't stop these polls being held, and it won't stop most conspiracy theorists quoting their results in the mistaken belief that they prove something.

This madness will never end!

Nobody here does. You place more meaning on it than anyone else. I think Lori was pointing out that people don't find Posner's take seriously either.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

To place any significance on the result of any such poll represents a fundamental logical fallacy. This poll, like any other, proves approximately nothing. If you asked any one person of that 80% why they believe there was a conspiracy, in all likelihood you'll get the answer: 'Because there just had to be', or 'Have you seen JFK?', or both.

A preponderance of conspiracy-oriented thinking, literature and media will guarantee similar results for years to come. Of course, it won't stop these polls being held, and it won't stop most conspiracy theorists quoting their results in the mistaken belief that they prove something.

This madness will never end!

Aren’t the factors of who follows Posner and how the algorithm places precedent in his postings the most significant things in that hypothesis? 
 

It proves of the people who saw the poll and decided to interact that 80% thought a conspiracy was at a play. Or just hate Posner. 🙂 
 

There are plenty of variables, another would be that its a reasonable supposition to think that Posner has more followers who admire his work than hate him?

It is true that most of the public would reply with answers similar to what you suggested. It has been in popular culture / film as the biggest whodunit in history. 
 

What would you estimate the public percentage in America that believe it was a conspiracy is? Which variables would take precedent in collating that data? 
 

Do you think people here who believe a conspiracy took place are deluded? ie the forum is riddled with this preponderance of conspiracy thinking that you refer to? 

 

[Paul Baker]

54 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Or just hate Posner. 🙂 

Apologies, I didn't realise this was purely about discrediting Posner, as if that somehow augments any notion of a conspiracy. Another logical fallacy. Proper debate shouldn't stray into the land of puerile ad hominem attacks. A very common scenario in this forum of 'debate'.

54 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

What would you estimate the public percentage in America that believe it was a conspiracy is? Which variables would take precedent in collating that data? 

When anyone creates a poll, in which the question is along the lines of 'Do you believe that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy?', there is a single variable with three possible values: Yes, No, Not sure. Fairly basic. Most people, I believe, don't know enough about the subject matter to form a considered opinion. So what's the point?

54 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Do you think people here who believe a conspiracy took place are deluded?

Yes, I do. That's my opinion. Because I don't believe there was one. The fact that there is absolutely no hard, reliable evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that there was a conspiracy cements that opinion. But I'm open minded and I don't care. In fact, if anyone could prove there was a conspiracy, I'd find that genuinely fascinating.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Paul Baker

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Apologies, I didn't realise this was purely about discrediting Posner, as if that somehow augments any notion of a conspiracy. Another logical fallacy. Proper debate shouldn't stray into the land of puerile ad hominem attacks. A very common scenario in this forum of 'debate'.

It’s very common in society, as people are less accountable from behind a keyboard. When the forum of discussion was the town square or even the humble  pub, people are more careful with their words. There are indeed plenty of logical fallacies here. Confirmation bias is perhaps a the hardest to shake. Most people are influenced in ways they don’t even realise. 

 

6 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

When anyone creates a poll, in which the question is along the lines of 'Do you believe that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy?', there is a single variable with three possible values: Yes, No, Not sure. Fairly basic. Most people, I believe, don't know enough about the subject matter to form a considered opinion. So What's the point?

Whilst I agree with the width of scope being limited and perhaps leading the audience to a certain outcome, a couple of things occur. You’d need so many categories, which dilutes any outcome and perhaps even  puts some people off engaging at all. The public not knowing enough can often be used to make the case against a conspiracy, and even market the idea of an official narrative. Most people are group thinkers, they gravitate toward the centre of the herd, their opinions mostly reflect that, not wishing to be cast out (mocked or looked down on). When a risqué question is asked, they’ll often have opinions that take the safest position. I would argue that the bulk of the population thinks WIKI is solid science and historical record. In this case LHO is the sole villain. People just don’t have time to research, they take whats serves up on WIKI and google. There are exceptions with polls but, I generally think they don’t have much validity because of some of what you and ai have said in the last couple of posts. As for Posner, he’d like to sell more books and maybe even write another. Its all profitable. What good engagement tells him is that there is strong appetite for the subject matter, IMO. 
 

7 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Yes, I do. That's my opinion. Because I don't believe there was one. The fact that there is absolutely no hard, reliable evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that there was a conspiracy cements that opinion. But I'm open minded and I don't care. In fact, if anyone could prove there was a conspiracy, I'd find that genuinely fascinating.

This is what I suspected when originally replying. I’ll explain. I wondered why you had been agitated into a defensive reply about the result of the poll. Had you not had skin in the game, you might have just looked and thought “oh another inconclusive, inconsequential poll”, which isn’t worth my time. You did go on to make the case lightly on the of the lone assassin theory. On any forum, or on the internet in general, there will be a percentage of delusional people. We have an epidemic of mental illness out there. Ego is also a massive factor, too. The forum and the JFKA is a very interesting case study of personalities and human behaviour. We get to know people to some extent over long periods and the case takes people to a wide variety of topics. 
 

Your final comment at the end is one that should make the forum interesting. Being open minded (as you proclaim) should in my opinion take you on a journey. You have said that there is no credible evidence of conspiracy. Let me ask a few questions.

- Are you satisfied with ballistics, the 3 bullets, trajectories, holes in garments, firing times of LHO and his whereabouts during the shooting? 
- Are you satisfied LHO is exactly who he is portrayed to be in the official narrative. 
- Are accepting by any reasonable doubt that the autopsy findings at Bethesda are conclusive? 
 

Which books have you read so far? Have you read material for and against? 
 

These are pretty common points of contention. For a conspiracy to have taken place, it needs to be two people or more, which is the accepted definition.

I should remind anyone that nobody was convicted of the crime of assassinating president Kennedy. 
 

Cheers.
 

PS what was the reason you were drawn to the forum and the case? Its an unusual place to find yourself when not caring about it. I spent many hours reading the forum before joining. 
 

 

 

[Paul Cummings]

I thought this was CASE CLOSED Posner?

[Matthew Koch]

26 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

I thought this was CASE CLOSED Posner?

It is Gerald Posner from Case Closed he was on Tucker Carlson last night as well. Posner was attempting to do a poll similar to how the broadcast news stations do when they show a poll of Americans that think that others were involved. It's a ha ha meme moment because conspiracy activist people on twitter retweeted it and their audience voted, similar to when someone put a 'where should Justin Bieber play next' poll on 4chan and they made North Korea the winner. I think so many people don't know about the Assassination that the poll is like 60 40ish Conspiracy vs not now a days. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Matthew Koch

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

To place any significance on the result of any such poll represents a fundamental logical fallacy.

 

The larger the percentage for conspiracy, the better.

There's no logical fallacy here.

 

10 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

This poll, like any other, proves approximately nothing. If you asked any one person of that 80% why they believe there was a conspiracy, in all likelihood you'll get the answer: 'Because there just had to be', or 'Have you seen JFK?', or both.

 

That's fine with me. Probably some of them will one day pick up and read a JFKA conspiracy book.

 

10 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

A preponderance of conspiracy-oriented thinking, literature and media will guarantee similar results for years to come.

 

Hope so!

 

10 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Of course, it won't stop these polls being held, and it won't stop most conspiracy theorists quoting their results in the mistaken belief that they prove something.

 

The stats prove that more people believe that the JFKA was a conspiracy than don't. If anyone has a mistaken belief, it ... is... you.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Posner's publisher is still selling his book. I suspect Posner has some obligation not to undermine book sales if not promote the book. 

[Paul Baker]

Thank you, Chris, for your polite, measured response.

15 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I wondered why you had been agitated into a defensive reply about the result of the poll. Had you not had skin in the game, you might have just looked and thought “oh another inconclusive, inconsequential poll”, which isn’t worth my time.

As I said, I believe I may have misinterpreted the intent of the original post here. I get irritated whenever someone implies that the result of yet another poll somehow lends weight to the idea that there was a conspiracy. It doesn't. That is a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity (or whatever its Latin equivalent is).

15 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

- Are you satisfied with ballistics, the 3 bullets, trajectories, holes in garments, firing times of LHO and his whereabouts during the shooting? 
- Are you satisfied LHO is exactly who he is portrayed to be in the official narrative. 
- Are accepting by any reasonable doubt that the autopsy findings at Bethesda are conclusive? 

Conspiracy thinking with respect to the JFK assassination (and in general), tends to focus on and exaggerate both real and perceived anomalies as if those undermine the wealth of reliable evidence that points to the lone shooter scenario. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If someone could conclusively demonstrate that he wasn't on the sixth floor while JFK was being murdered, that would tear the entire official story into tiny pieces, which is why conspiracy theorists would like to prove that. (Though that would simultaneously undermine any idea that Oswald was set up, since the conspirators would never allow him to be anywhere else when the shots were fired). But if Oswald was entirely innocent (as some believe), why did he abscond in the wake of the assassination and murder a policeman, and attempt to murder another, before being arrested? And why did he make an unscheduled visit to Irving the day before, where he kept his rifle? And what was in that package he took into work the following morning? It wasn't curtain rods, he didn't need them, and if he did, he'd have achieved the same result if he'd collected them during his normal Friday visit. Etc, etc...

The Zapruder film show us that Kennedy was shot from behind. Never mind the interpretation of the perceived back-and-to-the-left movement: Basic Newtonian physics coupled with a high contrast rendering of Z313 tells us that the shot that blew a hole in JFK's head came from behind. The vast majority of witnesses heard three shots. No other shooters were seen. Again, if the conspirators wanted to set up Oswald, they would have ensured that the shots did come from behind, rather than plant another shooter (or, as some seem to believe, other teams of shooters!) in Dealey Plaza and risk the entire plot being exposed. They also wouldn't have had to work out how to adjust the outcome of the autopsy. Isn't that latter idea ridiculous? You've got clever conspirators (clever, presumably, because they've managed to conceal the truth for nearly 60 years) who are also very, very stupid.

15 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

PS what was the reason you were drawn to the forum and the case? Its an unusual place to find yourself when not caring about it. I spent many hours reading the forum before joining. 

Because I'm interested in conspiracy theories and theorists generally. When say I don't care whether or not there was a conspiracy, perhaps that isn't entirely accurate. What I mean is that I could be persuaded either way. I believe there wasn't one, because that's where the reliable, credible evidence points. Unequivocally, in my opinion.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Thank you, Chris, for your polite, measured response.

As I said, I believe I may have misinterpreted the intent of the original post here. I get irritated whenever someone implies that the result of yet another poll somehow lends weight to the idea that there was a conspiracy. It doesn't. That is a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity (or whatever its Latin equivalent is).

Conspiracy thinking with respect to the JFK assassination (and in general), tends to focus on and exaggerate both real and perceived anomalies as if those undermine the wealth of reliable evidence that points to the lone shooter scenario. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If someone could conclusively demonstrate that he wasn't on the sixth floor while JFK was being murdered, that would tear the entire official story into tiny pieces, which is why conspiracy theorists would like to prove that. (Though that would simultaneously undermine any idea that Oswald was set up, since the conspirators would never allow him to be anywhere else when the shots were fired). But if Oswald was entirely innocent (as some believe), why did he abscond in the wake of the assassination and murder a policeman, and attempt to murder another, before being arrested? And why did he make an unscheduled visit to Irving the day before, where he kept his rifle? And what was in that package he took into work the following morning? It wasn't curtain rods, he didn't need them, and if he did, he'd have achieved the same result if he'd collected them during his normal Friday visit. Etc, etc...

The Zapruder film show us that Kennedy was shot from behind. Never mind the interpretation of the perceived back-and-to-the-left movement: Basic Newtonian physics coupled with a high contrast rendering of Z313 tells us that the shot that blew a hole in JFK's head came from behind. The vast majority of witnesses heard three shots. No other shooters were seen. Again, if the conspirators wanted to set up Oswald, they would have ensured that the shots did come from behind, rather than plant another shooter (or, as some seem to believe, other teams of shooters!) in Dealey Plaza and risk the entire plot being exposed. They also wouldn't have had to work out how to adjust the outcome of the autopsy. Isn't that latter idea ridiculous? You've got clever conspirators (clever, presumably, because they've managed to conceal the truth for nearly 60 years) who are also very, very stupid.

Because I'm interested in conspiracy theories and theorists generally. When say I don't care whether or not there was a conspiracy, perhaps that isn't entirely accurate. What I mean is that I could be persuaded either way. I believe there wasn't one, because that's where the reliable, credible evidence points. Unequivocally, in my opinion.

Hi Paul,

I think you might find plenty of interesting reading / entertainment here reading / debating some of the above.

There are many threads discussing the Tippit killing, the autopsy/hole in JFK’s shirt, the Parkland Dr’s vs the Bethesda account. There are lots of threads discussing the video vs Connolly’s wounds. 

An I correct in thinking that your own personality isn’t Machiavellian? Occam’s razor can prove pretty redundant in pre-meditated crimes. 
 

Is there a ‘conspiracy theory’ that you’ve researched and found to be true, as opposed to the official narrative originally propagated?