Balloons?

Antero wrote:If you say that things are part of the official story when they aren't, you have made a straw man version of the official story.

But then it wouldn't be the official story at all.

It wouldn't be a strawman version of an official story - it would be a different story.


Can you give me another specific of where a conspiracy theorist has snuck into an investigation committee and inserted some pretend element so they could then debunk it.

No but really can you give another example.
I fail to see how a conspiracy theorist interpreting the BBC issue differently is creating another official version. The 9/11 commission doesn't talk about the BBC fucking up.
I can see the conspiratorial interpretation as an example of confirmation bias but I don't see any Strawmen anywhere.

I think it might be you and Dave who don't understand what strawman means but walk me through your version again.

Kennedy needed to die.

SPPPNMANND!

Earwicker wrote:That all depends on what you consider 'specific' evidence though. Witnesses attesting to seeing and hearing grassy knoll shots could be seen as specific evidence. Not hard evidence but i think your confirmation bias is ruling them out.

I think you are struggling with the idea of confirmation bias. Which involves taking something random, or circumstancial and elevating it because it confirms to an arbitrary pattern. If there is no "hard" evidence, but you elevate all circumstancial information and any remotely interesting datum to the status of evidence, that is an irrational bias.

I've not heard of any 'specific' evidence that proves Oswald did it alone - have you?

There is no specific evident that H.G.Wells was not Jack the Ripper, should we take that idea seriously too?

You mean some folks decided to make up the Warren Commission report so that they could waste their time trying to make up things that seemed to contradict the Warren Commission Report?

Is this theatre or genuine stupidity?

Antero wrote:You're conflating the strawman official stories created by conspiracy theorists with the actual official explanations, and with the consensus of popular thought however flawed it may be. That is to say, while the conspiracy theorist in many cases must construct a straw man version of events to make himself listenable, this is built on top of an accepted official or consensus explanation, and is in fact directly related to the assumption that there is an official explanation that fails to explain everything: the most common straw man is simply the claim that the official explanation must address every theory and possibility, or else it is covering up for whatever's left.

I'm not, but I'm trying to explain that difference to Moe, Curly and Larry here. And, of course, I am failing.

The official explanations are individual reports, evidence, documentaries and such. This is fine, it isn't so stupid to try and debunk them if you treat them as individual articles rather than part of a block.

However, the idea that there is an "official story" that drives all these individual pieces is a strawman, and a pretty damn stupid one at that.

Most conspiracy theorists are not historians, engineers, scientists or men of clinical faculty. They are shut-ins and losers on the internet, staving off delusional parasitosis for a few hours by arguing the inarguable, and getting some sort of emotional validation for doing so. These people mostly do not have the means seriously debunk the facts presented in government reports and studies, so they invent the "official story" so their bias can run wild without ever calling any serious idea into question or ever being faced with the boundary of their own knowledge.

The front bullet theory, the three shot theory, the "construction guy" (or whatever his conspiracy name is), are all worthy of discussion. However the fact remains that such "theories" are less "theories" than off-the-cuff explanations put to together by people who were firstly (and primarily) convinced that Oswald didn't do it and then determined to hunt the evidence that confirmed to this bias. People do not discover real ideas this way.

The interesting point made by the BBC documentary (and many others) is about the Western mentality behind this, we see our capitalist institutions and our great leaders as almost supernaturally "real". We refuse to believe that lesser, regular guys could kill them or that our buildings could be toppled by people from backwards nations. It is a scary thought, so the immediate reaction is refusal to believe. It is an area of the mind that, for many, seems to deal with the world on the most infantile terms.

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:That all depends on what you consider 'specific' evidence though. Witnesses attesting to seeing and hearing grassy knoll shots could be seen as specific evidence. Not hard evidence but i think your confirmation bias is ruling them out.

I think you are struggling with the idea of confirmation bias. Which involves taking something random, or circumstancial and elevating it because it confirms to an arbitrary pattern. If there is no "hard" evidence, but you elevate all circumstancial information and any remotely interesting datum to the status of evidence, that is an irrational bias.

I'm quite aware of this but despite your hiding behind an increasingly condescending tone you are apparently too blind to see that 'official' - or if you prefer 'standard' theories (laid down, usually, by officially commissioned investigations) rely on precisely the kind of confirmation bias you are trying to slur me with.
The people on those committees are (supposedly) made up of respected people who weigh up what evidence is available and come to a conclusion - in the absence of hard evidence - on the plausability of suggested theories.
Of course what often happens is they are given a story and look for what can confirm it - ignoring the rest.

There is no hard evidence that Oswald did it - never mind did it alone.

Your confirmation bias makes you fail to grasp that your criticism should apply to holders of the 'standard' explanation as well as to critics of it.

Here's the difference between us it seems. I can be critical of both promoters of standard theories and critics of it.

You can't.
You have a bias.

big_dave wrote:

I've not heard of any 'specific' evidence that proves Oswald did it alone - have you?

There is no specific evident that H.G.Wells was not Jack the Ripper, should we take that idea seriously too?

It was you who used the lack of specific evidence for alternate theories as a point.
I was highlighting that the same applies to the official theory. But you won't accept that because .. well you tell me why... I'm genuinely intrigued as to why you so consistently fail to see the double standard you carry.

big_dave wrote:

You mean some folks decided to make up the Warren Commission report so that they could waste their time trying to make up things that seemed to contradict the Warren Commission Report?

Is this theatre or genuine stupidity?

Again , you tell me. Was I not describing your gibberish point effectively?
If not then try and make yourself clearer you silly boy.

I would like to see who else bothering to read this thinks your claims that the conspiracy theorists invent the 'official' story has any validity at all.
It is such patent nonsense I'd be surprised to see the majority agreeing.

At least I'd be surprised if I didn't think several people would not admit to realising you are talking turd for fear of being smeared as agreeing with Rick.

big_dave wrote:However, the idea that there is an "official story" that drives all these individual pieces is a strawman, and a pretty damn stupid one at that.

No it isn't.
There is obviously an 'official' theory.
You are being disingenuous.

big_dave wrote: such (conspiracy) "theories" are less "theories" than off-the-cuff explanations put to together by people who were firstly (and primarily) convinced that Oswald didn't do it and then determined to hunt the evidence that confirmed to this bias. People do not discover real ideas this way.

Hey Dave, Kennedy was killed in 1963. I was born much later. I was taught Oswald did it on his own.
I was firstly convinced of that, personally, because I hadn't looked beyond the 'standard'/'official' story.
Now I've looked into it I think it very unlikely he did it alone though would not presume to argue a specific alternate theory (or is there no such thing as an alternate theory either?). Several alternate theories seem more plausible to me than the one the rest of the world considers the standard one.

big_dave wrote:We refuse to believe that lesser, regular guys could kill them or that our buildings could be toppled by people from backwards nations. It is a scary thought, so the immediate reaction is refusal to believe.

This is a totally fallacious argument that's been thrown about before.

If you think that the idea of a nut with a gun is a scarier thought than a controlling web of military/intelligence/financial/clandestine government organisations manipulating world events politically, militarily and financially with little concern for the populations they manipulate and exploit...

...you are nuts.

And after writing all that I have just realised who I'm talking to. A man who despite accusations of stupidity all over the shop starts to argue that words don't mean what everyone else seems to think they mean for fear he'll have to admit he might be wrong.

I have been stupid.
I've been stupid even giving you the time of day.

I won't be responding to you in this thread again for the time being.

That would've worked better as a PM to Rick Reuben than a post in this thread.

Earwicker wrote:There is no hard evidence that Oswald did it - never mind did it alone.

There's plenty of hard evidence that Oswald did it: fingerprints on the rifle, forensic match of the bullets to the rifle, his purchasing the rifle, fingerprints from the sniper's spot, the modeling that programme (which I still think was excellent) showed demonstrating that the shots came from the window etc etc...

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that Oswald did it: the fact that he ran away from the depository immediately, the fact that he shot a cop, testimony from family and neighbours as to his state of mind beforehand...

Now, you may turn round and claim that all of this evidence is made up, fitted up, invented (requiring the collaboration of a lot of people, but within the realms of possibility). I cannot say that you're wrong, because there's no proof to say there wasn't a conspiracy - because that's how conspiracies work! But I can say that I think that it is highly unlikely.

For what it's worth, I agree with big dave on these conspiracy theories: they are comforting to a certain mindset. They bring order to cruel chaos - "At least someone is in control, and we can bring them down!" It has the same appeal as Star Wars: "Right, so we're at the point of The Empire Strikes Back, but I can take us to Return of the Jedi."

There are still conspiracies, but generally when I find out that people have looked at an event with a conclusion in mind from the outset, I think that they have too much invested in that conclusion to give good account.

No one's attempted to rebut my argument regarding the very nature of the CIA of the early 1960s and what HAS been declassified. Oh well. I suppose it's more entertaining for you all to pick fights with RR.

Anyways, here's a Jefferson Morley piece entitled "What JFK Conspiracy Bashers Get Wrong". The dude's one of the very, very few mainstream journalists (Washington Post, Washington Monthly) still looking into this story.

Er ... sheepish confession.

I just watched a bit of that documentary beyond the title and realised it's not the one I said was poo in my earlier post.

Whoops.

I have actually seen this one too and it is a far superior documentary.
It doesn't convince me completely and I don't think it's super or anything but I ballsed up there.

I accept my punishment.

I think I should note though - as I did in that earlier post - that i said I found the linked website interesting.
There seems to be a misconception that because I said that (wrong) documentary was rubbish I am not willing to hear of anything non conspiratorial.
That isn't so.

sparky wrote:There's plenty of hard evidence that Oswald did it: fingerprints on the rifle, forensic match of the bullets to the rifle, his purchasing the rifle,

You're right. There's debate around it of course but this is hard evidence for Oswald holding the gun.

sparky wrote: the modeling that programme (which I still think was excellent) showed demonstrating that the shots came from the window etc etc...

There is debate around these computer models too. They have corrected certain assumptions but to my mind fall prey to others. Two off the top of my head are that the throat wound was higher than the back wound and if I remember rightly the autopsy doctors described the throat wound as an entry wound The nature of the head wound is disputed also.

sparky wrote:There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that Oswald did it:...the fact that he shot a cop,

There's debate over whether he did that too as i understand it.

sparky wrote:testimony from family and neighbours as to his state of mind beforehand...

That doesn't really prove anything.

There is testimony from people who were there that there were gunshots from the grassy knoll etc

This is what I mean about being selective in what circumstantial evidence you choose to consider valid.

sparky wrote:Now, you may turn round and claim that all of this evidence is made up, fitted up, invented (requiring the collaboration of a lot of people, but within the realms of possibility). I cannot say that you're wrong, because there's no proof to say there wasn't a conspiracy - because that's how conspiracies work! But I can say that I think that it is highly unlikely.

I don't think cover up unlikely at all myself. This just boils down to opinion regarding what you or I deem plausible. That someone (who may be a shooter) might be set up as a fall guy for others would not be at all surprising to me. It's not like it's never happened before.

sparky wrote:For what it's worth, I agree with big dave on these conspiracy theories: they are comforting to a certain mindset. They bring order to cruel chaos - "At least someone is in control, and we can bring them down!"

I can't speak for others but for me the idea of powerful and sinister conspiracies does not bring order to anything. I don't subscribe to any vast all encompassing conspiracy theory. I consider there have been and are lots of conspiracies. Some participants might work against each other some with each other. Some might do both. It's the way of that underground world works (Im speaking, at least, of the shady world of intelligence and political subterfuge. I presume everyone is okay with admitting there are such things as spies).
To me the idea of conspiracy adds extra cruelty to the chaos - not order.

I also have no expectation that 'they' could be brought down.

sparky wrote:There are still conspiracies, but generally when I find out that people have looked at an event with a conclusion in mind from the outset, I think that they have too much invested in that conclusion to give good account.

I agree. But I think most look at certain events with conclusions in mind - even if they say they haven't any such conclusion. Admitting to a potential bias is the first step in guarding against it colouring your view.

I have no particular personal investment in thinking Kennedy was whacked.

Incidentally Sparky - do you think there is such a thing as a 'standard' or 'official' theory with regards the assassination?