Unedited Zapruder Film Finally Surfaces

[Arouet]

Shermer will proceed to condescendingly instruct to witnesses they they cannot trust their own eyes and cannot be believed because eyewitness reports are, according to Shermer, completely unreliable. Which has been proven repeatedly not to be the rule, but the exception.

Can you post this research?

 

[fls]

Okay, I still don't get it. I realize someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make numbers and draw lines on a blurry photograph, but I don't see how anyone can really be expected to be confident there is any sort of perfect match. Most of the stuff doesn't even look like much of a match or if anything, it's trivial. Anyone wearing a collared shirt has a collar roll and a point where the lapel folds, for example. And the placement of these folds and rolls on any shirt are pretty standard. Why are people acting like any of this is unequivocal?

And why would skeptics be eating crow now? None of this is new.

Linda

 

[tim]

 

[steve001]

Okay, I still don't get it. I realize someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make numbers and draw lines on a blurry photograph, but I don't see how anyone can really be expected to be confident there is any sort of perfect match. Most of the stuff doesn't even look like much of a match or if anything, it's trivial. Anyone wearing a collared shirt has a collar roll and a point where the lapel folds, for example. And the placement of these folds and rolls on any shirt are pretty standard. Why are people acting like any of this is unequivocal?

And why would skeptics be eating crow now? None of this is new.

Linda

Here's something that helps to understand. It's the only way anyone will be able to understand what's going on.
Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/

 

[Steve]

Here's something that helps to understand. It's the only way anyone will be able to understand what's going on.
Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/

Does this mean that Conspiracy Theorists believe all conspiracies ?

Don't you think it's possible that the nut cases in charge of us might just be capable of, for example, murdering one of their own? If they did so they are hardly likely to say...all right,Hands up... I/we did it ! - many of them are devious lying torags by nature , that is something that has been proven time and time again ?

Is there nothing you're suspicious of ? Is everything peachy in your world ? Apart from those numbskulls that believe in woo, of course ! :)

 

[fls]

Does this mean that Conspiracy Theorists believe all conspiracies ?

Don't you think it's possible that the nut cases in charge of us might just be capable of, for example, murdering one of their own? If they did so they are hardly likely to say...all right,Hands up... I/we did it ! - many of them are devious lying torags by nature , that is something that has been proven time and time again ?

Is there nothing you're suspicious of ? Is everything peachy in your world ? Apart from those numbskulls that believe in woo, of course ! :)

That's not what this is about. Conspiracies exist, sometimes people twig on to them. It's more believable that there was something more going on with Kennedy's assassination than a lone nutcase.

What I'm wondering about is why old, really weak information is being used to claim that the case has been blown wide open in an unequivocal way? I'm thinking that one of the ways in which the crazy can be distinguished from legitimate concern is by the quality of supporting information and reasoning process.

Linda

 

[Steve]

That's not what this is about. Conspiracies exist, sometimes people twig on to them. It's more believable that there was something more going on with Kennedy's assassination than a lone nutcase.

What I'm wondering about is why old, really weak information is being used to claim that the case has been blown wide open in an unequivocal way? I'm thinking that one of the ways in which the crazy can be distinguished from legitimate concern is by the quality of supporting information and reasoning process.

Linda

It seemed Steve believed the official story in the case of Kennedy, this seemed stranger to me than someone who has looked into the case believing the conspiracy? As Tim said, you only have to look at Oswalds body language to see that he's thinking 'what's going on ?', and I agree with him about Ruby too.

I don't think this 'new' information blows anything open. Here's hoping I'm wrong?

I guess I'm discriminating about conspiracies, but would not be very surprised at how badly people can and do behave. There's nowt so weird as folk !

 

[Matt²]

Here's somethings that helps to understand. It's the only way anyone will be able to understand what's going on.
Insights into the Personalities of Pathological Skepticism or Pseudoskepticism;

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=28&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFEQFjAHOBQ&url=http://academic.udayton.edu/psy49305/Articles/Blaton%20(2001).pdf&ei=o07iU6pWw6TIBOG1gmg&usg=AFQjCNF7tSfxIEn-nne_2zFyZDhXCCa-uw&bvm=bv.72197243,d.ZGU

www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf

Personalities disorders also include:
Cognitive Dissonance;
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0062.xml

Pathological Narcissism;
http://amasci.com/pathsk2.html

Additional pathology and symptoms may encompass:
Normalcy Bias;
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti..._people_who_see_atrocities_look_the_other_wa/

 

[Formal Dining Room Set]

That's not what this is about. Conspiracies exist, sometimes people twig on to them. It's more believable that there was something more going on with Kennedy's assassination than a lone nutcase.

What I'm wondering about is why old, really weak information is being used to claim that the case has been blown wide open in an unequivocal way? I'm thinking that one of the ways in which the crazy can be distinguished from legitimate concern is by the quality of supporting information and reasoning process.

Linda

What is terrible reasoning is to comment on a conspiracy you obviously know nothing about, then to passive aggressively claim through a link that over half the American public, members of the Warren Commision and the man who wrote the difinitive encyclopedia on the JFK assassination have a personality flaw, then to contradict that claim with your next comment. If you want to understand the nature of shitty reasoning skills, best to start with yourself. By the way, your comment above doesn't make any sense... as usual.

 

[Formal Dining Room Set]

Can you post this research?

Why would he need to? It isn't a controversial claim. It's universally recognized.

 

[fls]

What is terrible reasoning is to comment on a conspiracy you obviously know nothing about, then to passive aggressively claim through a link that over half the American public, members of the Warren Commision and the man who wrote the difinitive encyclopedia on the JFK assassination have a personality flaw, then to contradict that claim with your next comment. If you want to understand the nature of shitty reasoning skills, best to start with yourself. By the way, your comment above doesn't make any sense... as usual.

I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't think I said anything about the Warren Commission, or whoever the man is who wrote the definitive encyclopedia on the JFK assasination. I only referred to the items Matt has presented as somehow new and unequivocal. If you want to be useful, you could explain in what way they offer new information, or in what way the photo comparison isn't picking up on trivial or questionable matches. I'm not seeing it.

Linda

 

[steve001]

Does this mean that Conspiracy Theorists believe all conspiracies ?

Don't you think it's possible that the nut cases in charge of us might just be capable of, for example, murdering one of their own? If they did so they are hardly likely to say...all right,Hands up... I/we did it ! - many of them are devious lying torags by nature , that is something that has been proven time and time again ?

Is there nothing you're suspicious of ? Is everything peachy in your world ? Apart from those numbskulls that believe in woo, of course ! :)

Yes there are things I am suspicious of such as emails from Nigeria saying you'll be given lots of money, miracle cures...
The problem that makes the Kennedy assassination conspiracy dubious is the quality of the evidence. It has the same value of evidence as is used to disprove the Apollo Moon landing and prove chemtrails, etc. contrived and pulled out of thin air. Oswald may have had some help, been goaded, by outside parties, but to date there's so solid evidence that's true. If it was a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy with a small "c".

The two questions I don't see being asked are these.
1. Why do I [insert your name] have such a difficult time believing one man could have kill JFK?
2. Why do I [insert your name] feel it necessary to go along with the its a conspiracy?

 

[Formal Dining Room Set]

I don't understand what you're talking about.

This doesn't surprise me.

I don't think I said anything about the Warren Commission, or whoever the man is who wrote the definitive encyclopedia on the JFK assasination.

I know.

I only referred to the items Matt has presented as somehow new and unequivocal.

Oh really?

If you want to be useful...

hehe

...you could explain in what way they offer new information, or in what way the photo comparison isn't picking up on trivial or questionable matches.

No.

I'm not seeing it.

Oh, I see.

Linda

I know.

 

[tim]

Yes there are things I am suspicious of such as emails from Nigeria saying you'll be given lots of money, miracle cures...
The problem that makes the Kennedy assassination conspiracy dubious is the quality of the evidence. It has the same value of evidence as is used to disprove the Apollo Moon landing and prove chemtrails, etc. contrived and pulled out of thin air. Oswald may have had some help, been goaded, by outside parties, but to date there's so solid evidence that's true. If it was a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy with a small "c".

Why do you think Ruby shot Oswald ? Look at the expression on Oswald's face, he doesn't look troubled enough ..."No I'm just a patsy"

Steve, you've really not started on your crow have you. Crow resistant

 

[steve001]

Why do you think Ruby shot Oswald ? Look at the expression on Oswald's face, he doesn't look troubled enough ..."No I'm just a patsy"

Steve, you've really not started on your crow have you. Crow resistant

Tim, stop this absurdity. It's a poor strategy.

 

[Arouet]

Why do you think Ruby shot Oswald ? Look at the expression on Oswald's face, he doesn't look troubled enough ..."No I'm just a patsy"

I don't want to read too much into this, since people can react differently, but I noticed the same thing about his face but my thinking was that someone who was innocent would probably look terrified in that situation. His look seemed to me to be more consistent with someone who had expected to be in that situation.

Again: we should be cautious of relying too much on this aspect.

 

[Formal Dining Room Set]

Yes there are things I am suspicious of such as emails from Nigeria saying you'll be given lots of money, miracle cures...
The problem that makes the Kennedy assassination conspiracy dubious is the quality of the evidence. It has the same value of evidence as is used to disprove the Apollo Moon landing and prove chemtrails, etc. contrived and pulled out of thin air. Oswald may have had some help, been goaded, by outside parties, but to date there's so solid evidence that's true. If it was a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy with a small "c".

The two questions I don't see being asked are these.
1. Why do I [insert your name] have such a difficult time believing one man could have kill JFK?
2. Why do I [insert your name] feel it necessary to go along with the its a conspiracy?

Haha!

 

[malf]

Tim, stop this absurdity. It's a poor strategy outside of preschool.

fixed ;)

 

[tim]

Tim, stop this absurdity. It's a poor strategy.

It seems I've been labouring the crow aspect. Would you like to try some humble pie ? I've made at least three portions and refrigerated them ready for the Aware results. Unfortunately they're going a bit mouldy........but don't read anything into that Steve

 

[tim]

I don't want to read too much into this, since people can react differently, but I noticed the same thing about his face but my thinking was that someone who was innocent would probably look terrified in that situation. His look seemed to me to be more consistent with someone who had expected to be in that situation.

Again: we should be cautious of relying too much on this aspect.

No, I think he didn't look scared simply because he didn't do it. Of course it's pointless speculating, he either did or he didn't and I believe he didn't (based on all the facts at our disposal.