- A teacher on the front line as faith and science clash: from the New York Times, a tale of teaching evolution in Florida schools.
- A short, illustrated history of the nerd.
- The Amateur Scientist stops in at cool scifi site Pink Raygun to debunk palm reading.
- 10 people with unbelievable medical conditions.
Mmm the woman who is allergic to modern technology… truly unbelievable.
In fact are any of them believable ?
..as for the man who can not feel cold ,surley a contender for photoshop disasters
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, the illustrated history of the nerd doesn’t answer the basic question: am I who I am because of nature or nerdture?
Hi guys and gals. I am a newbie here.
I stumbled upon some of these “skeptic” sites by accident doing various reading on-line. One of the sites has a very good summary of logically fallacious argument techniques, employed as a substitute for critical thinking. None of this is new to me, as I have a degree in physics and philosophy from a top University. It’s funny how way back when many of the top physicists were also top philosophers, because it was all about what you could prove or not prove. Of course proving the existence of god was a hot topic to these historic, great minds.
They never could quite pull that off. It was hard enough for Descartes to prove the existence of himself – let alone god.
What I find interesting about these skeptic sites is that it seems that this crowd is dutifully skeptical of all kinds questionable claims on the one hand, and yet on certain topics you exhibit a blind faith that would make a run-of-the-mill fundamentalist envious.
You do this even though the gods that you bow down to have proven themselves throughout history as unreliable and deserving of skepticism and critical thinking.
The two examples that stand out prominently is a remarkable uncritical acceptance of:
1. The “truth” emanating from the government.
2. The “truth” from the western medical community or even the science community.
Such blind faith in these institutions over the course of history leads to acceptance of such things as bleeding as a remedy, the earth is flat, and the North Vietnamese really did attack us in the Gulf of Tonkin – our government’s ruse for authority to wage the Vietnam War.
Am I missing some here?
Because I see an awful lot of blind, uncritical faith on these skeptic sites when it comes to authority figures, who are not only fallible from time to time, but also – believe it or not – abuse authority and power for their own purposes on occasion.
I just don’t see how such blind faith and acceptance is compatible with this claim to be skeptics.
the emf article in the Daily Fail quotes, “the pathology is now established. It has a huge detrimental physical effect and stops people living normal lives.'”
Really?
That paper doesn’t have its wonderful scientific reputation for nothing.
TrueSkeptic, please provide examples of how we, on this site, justified either the outline of 1 or 2 in your mind and we will defend that position, but please don’t generalize. If you read this site, you won’t see that we are all peons for the g’ment, since we have outlined many things that we see as wrong with it, but when it comes to things like the Moon Landing, Kennedy and 9/11 then all of the evidence is on their side.
As for Western Medicine, then I will simply say, it is the only medical establishment which requires and provides information on its efficacy. You don’t get that from Eastern Traditions, so we don’t say it doesn’t work, just that we have no evidence of it working.
I look forward to an open dialog with you.
@TrueSkeptic
Which top university graduated you? What branch of physics and philosophy did you study?
I don’t want to be rude but something about the tone of your post seems a little higgildy piggildy to me. I’m a bit skeptical of your statements.
The amateur scientist piece on palmistry was great. Was he making it up or did egyptian women really stuff their vaginas with aligator dung? Do aligators even have dung?
Gabrielbrawley: I think it was slightly more complicated than that (at least, I hope so, for those women’s sakes), but I do happen to know that the ancient Egyptians did use dung as a contraceptive.
Don’t ask me how I know that. I’m uncertain myself, and I’d like to stay that way.
Protesilaus,
I’ll just start by choosing one from your list: the JFK assassination, because it provides an easy example. One of the prominently featured “proofs” in the FBI’s case was their claim to have developed a new scientific investigative technique of being able to match the bullet fragments that hit JFK with the unspent cartridges allegedly left behind by Oswald, by means of microscopic analysis and comparison of the lead in each. This technique was created for that investigation, but was then commonly used for decades thereafter.
Now within the past few years, a whistleblower in the FBI came forward and has admitted that it was hoax. It was complete junk science. They just flat out made it up. Imagine that? In my line of work, you pull a stunt like that and you find yourself in a very, very big credibility hole where every other claim you make should be viewed with a very healthy dose of skepticism. Now for you to accept the government’s position on the rest of the story, which is improbable on its face, these people who employed junk science are the same people you have to trust in order to assert that the “evidence is all on their side.”
So there is just one example of government proffered science that you seem perhaps too willing to accept on blind, religious-like faith.
There are many other examples that I have seen on this site that appear to fall a little short of proper skepticism. A little short of proper critical thinking. But I’ll let you chew on this one first.
So do I take it that you defend the Warren Commission Report? Really? Wow. I personally know one of the US Attorneys who worked on the Challenger crash investigation. He related how at the outset the head of the investigation told the team: “We are going to do this right – this will not be another whitewash like the Warren Commission.” I mean for anyone in the know – including some of the actual Commissioners in later confessions – that investigation was a complete joke. This was all conceded before the FBI was caught fabricating scientific claims.
So Protes — are you “skeptical” yet on this one?
To quote from the Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” : )
“Skeptic” … hmm … where is my dictionary? It’s not that any one conclusion is mandated on JFK, but that’s the whole point. The skeptic sites ridicule those whose skepticism prevents them from blindly following a discredited (and now admittedly fraudulent) investigation. Such irony.
JFK is not the example I would chosen, but since you did – there it is.
TrueSkeptic, all Protesilaus mentioned was the word “Kennedy.” I think you made more than a few assumptions about his exact opinions on the issue, and that’s not quite fair or polite.
You’ll find a LOT of different opinions on this site. Sometimes you might find opinions, definitely not excepting my own, that could use a bit more skepticism and critical reasoning. We’re open to discussion and correction – but why not try do it in a less aggressive way.
I don’t know very much about the JFK deal, but from your argument alone, it doesn’t make any more sense to me why I should be on your side of it. And I’m one of the most anti-government people on this site.
“Which top university graduated you? What branch of physics and philosophy did you study?”
Rice University. Just go on-line and look at the curriculum requirements for a degree in physics. I studied quantum mechanics, electrodynamics (the real tough stuff) as well as all the classical stuff. Of course there is a lot of rigorous math involved as well. Branch of philosophy – it was pretty much the Western tradition from the Greeks up through the 2oth century. Plato through Bertrand Russell and everyone in between.
My main purpose was to see if there was anything that was beyond my understanding put out by the greatest minds in history. There was nothing.
TrueSkeptic,
Cool, good university. Like I said, I’m not trying to be rude but whenever I see some one claim something like “top university” it makes me feel a little funny. Sounds like you did the hard work. Congratualations.
As for Kennedy, I don’t think there was a conspiracy. I’ve been to the book depository. You can look out the window and see the two x’s that mark the position of the limo when Kennedy was shot. It isn’t a hard shot. I could do it with a rifle with iron sights. The scope would just make it a lot easier. Also I am very skeptical about any conspiracy in general. People can’t keep secrets. A conspiracy to pull this off would need a lot of people and would leave a lot of evidence. It wouldn’t have worked and it wouldn’t have stayed secret.
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi
is a very good book on the subject. It is long and isn’t the easiest read but I found it very interesting.
Jen,
Sorry if I was less than polite. : )
I think Protesilaus’s point on JFK was pretty clear – you really don’t think so? I guess he can correct me, but it was pretty obvious he was referring to the government’s explanation. Look at the sequence – I mentioned trusting the government and he responded with the issue of the JFK evidence being all on their side. You think I made a bad assumption?
“I don’t know very much about the JFK deal, but from your argument alone, it doesn’t make any more sense to me why I should be on your side of it.”
Really – what is my side? You criticized me for making assumptions.
The only “side” I put forth was that one should be skeptical of the government’s side on this issue, after he offered up JFK as an exemplar. And you say I did not advance this case with my argument? Interesting.
I established that the Commissioners themselves who wrote up the government’s side derided it, as well as other insiders, and that the FBI fabricated evidence using bogus science.
But all of this does not, in your view, advance my point that the government’s story should, in fact, be viewed with skepticism – not blind faith. Once again – I find the use of “critical thinking” and “skepticism” to be curious on these sites.
Maybe the partying is good? : )
“Maybe the partying is good? : )”
Really?
You’re being very passive-agressive.
TrueSkeptic
“My main purpose was to see if there was anything that was beyond my understanding put out by the greatest minds in history. There was nothing.”
Arrogant much?
spurge: Arrogant, pretentious, and passive-agressive, all at once!
Thanks for the kind words on my palmistry article at PinkRaygun.com and to Skepchick for linking to my site, AmateurScientist.org, in the past.
I feel I must agree with TrueSkeptic on the government question. While it’s true that maintaining a massive conspiracy of silence between thousands of self-interested individuals over several generations becomes less and less possible with every passing minute after the conspiracy is born, you “skeptics” must understand that the government is not, in fact, a mass of self-interested individuals. Indeed, this is the greatest scam the powers that be have pulled over on the public since President Taft told America he had a 32″ waist.
The word “government” is actually a watered-down version of “Guvmat”, the name of the Sumerian tentacle demon that currently controls all of society. I won’t go into all the details (they involve lots of controversial claims, not least of which being the Pope-as-Guvmat-sperm-pod Theory), but you must understand that all of those government “employees” and “elected officials” you so naively believe exist are actually products of Guvmat’s ancient glamour magicks. (You know it’s ancient when it’s spelled with a “k”.)
Sadly, Ron Paul (or Ruanpol the Illuminator) is the only one who knows the truth of Guvmat, but due to prehistoric law these truths must be hidden between the lines of badly Xeroxed, semi-racist newsletters.
“Arrogant much?”
It’s really not as hard as might think. In the end, it really all breaks down to 2 + 2 = 4 and then building upon that.
To help pay my way through school, I use to tutor inner city kids, who were having trouble. They would tell me they did not understand the the class material. So I would just keep going farther and farther back until we reached a point in the subject that they did understand. And I would then tell them “Oh you understand this? Well if you understand this – then the rest will be easy.” You just find their confidence level and take as small as steps as you need to get where you want to go.
If I cannot teach you everything that I learned, then that means that I probably really do not understand it myself. Since I think I do understand it – that means I think you could too.
So I am not really separating myself from you. It’s just a question of confidence and interest.
Trueskeptic
I chose the Moon Landing, FBI, and 9/11 because they are the big 3 of government conspiracy. Now as for the bullet fragments, information that you are claiming, can you sight what you are talking about please. It will be much easier to analyze what you are saying. I’m not sure if you are talking about Neutron Activation Analysis, Bullet Fingerprinting or what have you.
Second, you say a whistleblower came forward, and it was complete junk science, one question, if it was used in a lot of other cases, why haven’t they been overturned?
Thirdly, do you make any claims about the events of that day. You seem to point to a second shooter, by the stance in your previous statements, but the Zapruder Film clearly shows a gunman in the Book Depository.
As for the Warren Report, I will not defend the project as a whole, but if you wish we can debate the individual claims made in it. My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK.
I likewise am suspicious of this woman who’s allergic to EMF. You can find people who claim it all over the place, but to my knowledge most cases that have been investigated fail a simple blinded test. That sort of allergic reaction can be just as easily caused by a psychosomatic response as being an actual result of EMF.
But if she is really allergic to EMF, we should be able to determine it easily with a blinded test. Furthermore, it should be possible to determine the parameters of the allergy. Is there a specific frequency band that triggers the allergy? What’s the signal strength threshold to the allergy?
Also, what’s the connection with the BMW? Why does the BMW trigger her allergy when supposedly it’s EMF she’s allergic to? It’s only a suspicion, but I’m willing to bet the BMW has a GPS receiver mounted in it. That doesn’t emit any EMF, but it’d trigger an “OMG TECHNOLOGY” response from her.
Also, note that the problem began when she moved into a new apartment. Another possibility is that she was genuinely allergic to something else in that apartment. I know from personal experience that it’s possible to be allergic to one species of dust mite but not another, so that’s one possible explanation. Or it could have been an additive in the paint. Either way, once she got it in her head that EMF was the “real” problem, it was inevitable that, after moving, the improvement in her condition would be attributed to the anti-EMF regimen rather than to change in location.
P.s.: AmateurScientist wins CoTW, hands down.
“Second, you say a whistleblower came forward, and it was complete junk science, one question, if it was used in a lot of other cases, why haven’t they been overturned?”
There is a project in place to review all criminal cases where the fraudulent lead matching technique was a substantial factor in criminal convictions and many of these convictions are being overturned and innocent people being set free. The last I heard on it — the review process is suppose to be comprehensive. There are FBI admissions and scientifically peer-reviewed papers on the topic. It’s not hard to find. You really need me to help you on this?
“You really need me to help you on this?”
It is not our job to back up your assertions.
As am I. My first stop shop on extraordinary claims is generally Carroll’s Skeptic’s Dictionary. He’s got a good writeup on EMF, and quite a lot of other things as well.
The hardcopy is excellent as well, for those that don’t own it.
I am looking into it now, and its baring on the case as a whole, but so far I see no bearing on how this proves a conspiracy or another gunman. Listen, you seem to be doing anomaly hunting, please, if you want to make a claim make a claim. I will ask you to take an actual position here. Do you think there was another gunman?
I will restate my position:
My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK.
Also, please don’t be so testy that I am asking you to defend your position or to take an actual position. I have made no claims to my intelligence/greatness nor said anything about your position and I do not plan on doing that. If you want to have a discussion on all of the facts about the case, I am open to hear and review them. The case is over 40 years old and I am sure there going to be new evidence, which is why I will not defend the Warren Report as a whole, but I will only be defending the position that I stated above. At least let me know what your position is on the events of the day.
I think TrueSkeptic is referring to the now largely discredited Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL) technique used by the FBI since the 1960s as proof that two or more bullets came from the same batch based on spectrographic analysis of elemental composition (stop yawning at the back). The “whistleblower” appears to be William Tobin, a retired FBI forensics expert specialising in metallurgy who co-authored a paper questioning the validity of CABL and was featured on a 60 Minutes report in November 2007, see: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml)
It should be noted that Tobin produced the report after he left the FBI and does not appear to have been or, to be fair, to have claimed to have been privy to any secret FBI cabals “flat out making up” flawed forensic methodology in order to cover up huge assassination conspiracies. Nor was Tobin “admitting” anything or at any point referring to a “hoax.”
The use of CABL was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences (Board on Chemical Science and Technology) in 2004 and (summarising considerably here) concluded that whilst the technique may offer some value for analysis of ballistic evidence it was not sufficiently precise, due to the nature of bullet lead manufacture, to confirm that two or more bullets came from the same batch or the same box (or for that matter, the same factory). Those without a life can read the full report here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10924&page=R1.
The link with JFK comes from an article in the Annals of Applied Statistics, co-authored by Tobin, which questioned the methods used by Professor Vincent P. Guinn in his evidence to the Warren Commission and concluded the recovered bullet fragments “could have come from three or more separate bullets and, therefore, more than one shooter.” Or to put it another way: could have come from one shooter firing three bullets. This study would appear to indicate that if there were multiple shooters in Deeley Plaza they were firing ammunition that could not have been definitely proven to have come from the same batch. It doesn’t prove that there were multiple shooters. An interesting point to note is that Tobin’s article claims that the possible second shooter (only two? In Oliver Stone’s JFK there were at least three) actually managed to miss Kennedy, too much foliage on the grassy knoll maybe. It seems odd the Mafia, the CIA or the industrial/military complex couldn’t find a second sniper who could shoot straight. You can access a Washington Post article on this here, along with a pretty detailed rebuttal that I can’t be bothered to summarise right now: http://aine.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/17/723873-scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis-multiple-shooters-possible-study-says
I, of course, stand to be corrected. Maybe there’s another whistleblower I couldn’t find in my exhaustive ten minute google search.
“Also I am very skeptical about any conspiracy in general. People can’t keep secrets. A conspiracy to pull this off would need a lot of people and would leave a lot of evidence. It wouldn’t have worked and it wouldn’t have stayed secret.”
Well let’s test your theory about conspiracies:
1. I suppose you can tell me who killed Jimmy Hoffa and where the body is buried? Do you think that was a successful conspiracy? Or a random, unexplained act of senseless violence. Let’s not be too naive here. : )
2. The Pentagon engineered a “false flag” attack on American Warships in the Gulf of Tonkin that was a complete fabrication, which hundreds must have known about, and it was successfully concealed for about 40 years. McNamara has recently admitted it. — So are we suppose to wait a certain amount of decades before concluding that we would have heard something by now?
E. Howard Hunt – CIA – in a recorded statement taken by his son on his death bed admitted that Oswald did not kill JFK. Now I am not saying that he should be believed – but it is simply not true that people have not come forward.
Look – you cannot make blanket statements about “conspiracies.” I go after financial fraud conspiracies for a living. They often involve lots of people and they often succeed, without the protection of the government. If law enforcement agencies want to help them – which occasionally happens – then it can be very problematical to get at the truth.
Blind trust in the government is a very, very dangerous thing. The founding fathers understood this. One should be naturally skeptical of the government and none too quick to accept what it says on blind faith – particularly where the exercise of government power is involved. History has proven this over and over and over again.
I just find it strange that religious faith in the government should be a theme on a skeptics’ site. Just seems backwards.
1. No, I don’t know who killed Jimmy Hoffa but I don’t think this is quite the same thing. I am sure that Jimmy is dead and probably went through a meat processor and wound up in a pack of hamburger meat. But this wouldn’t have had to be a huge conspiracy. Two or three people could have taken out Hoffa and then one could have killed the others. This could leave you with a single person knowing the truth. Or it could be something else that I didn’t think of or know.
2. We know about this, we have known for a long, long time. We knew it years before that trajic joke of a “police action” was over. Heck, we knew it before LBJ was out of office. The same way that we know Bush deliberatly lied and mislead America and the rest of the world into the current trajic joke of a war.
What do you do for a living. This has nothing to do with the rest of this I’m just curious about someone who did physics working financial fraud. I went from criminal justice to accounting. Just curious you can tell me to fuck off if it is out of line. I won’t mind.
Also I agree that we shouldn’t have blind faith in government. I wasn’t advocating that. If it sounds like I was then that was poor communication on my part. Also I haven’t ever seen anyone advocating anything like religious faith in the government on theis sight. I have seen a lot of criticizim of the government. I just haven’t seen any convincing evidence that anyone other than Oswald shot JFK.
Appleman,
Excellent work.
And you make absolutely valid points about what Tobin did and did not conclude publicly about how the phony bullet matching science came about.
But let me do that on my own. You cannot accidently invent this false science, which they did for the first time in the JKF case. If they properly tested the theory at the time, they would have seen that it was invalid.
There are two possibilities – either they knew the science was wrong or they knew that they did not know one way or the other — i.e. did not do basic testing to back up the theory. In law, both are fraud.
So the FBI committed a fraud and the FBI otherwise predominately took possession of and controlled the evidence — time to start being skeptical.
There is a taped conversation of LBJ imploring one of the members of the Warren Commission to join, in which he states there won’t be any real work to do – the FBI has already figured it all out.
Oswald said he was a “patsy” — that’s on odd thing to say – don’t you think? Right before someone strolls up to him and executes him.
Any skeptics out there?
Yes,
Were just skeptical of the conspiracy hypothesis.
@TrueSkeptic posted
Who here claimed to trust the government blindly?
You made the accusation without any supporting evidence.
Tell us specifically what skeptical blind spots people here have and the evidence you have to support this assertion.
TrueSketpic,
There are two possibilities – either they knew the science was wrong or they knew that they did not know one way or the other — i.e. did not do basic testing to back up the theory. In law, both are fraud.
This is a blatant false dichotomy. There are hundreds of studies that are overturned every year by new evidence. Are you postulating all of them are committing fraud?
Also, I will no longer research any of the information you provide unless you start to provide references. I don’t want to keep jumping from one source to another. Trying to do the work you should be doing when you make claims.
Lastly, I will add, the “notes” were never seen by anyone other than “Saint John”, and the audio was broadcasts on Coast to Coast AM without any voice analysis. People make up your own mind about the E. Howard Hunt confession.
“Oswald said he was a “patsy” — that’s on odd thing to say – don’t you think? Right before someone strolls up to him and executes him.”
——————
Dude. You don’t seem to understand the nature of the question or of evidence in general.
The only issue on the table is whether Oswald was the only gunman who shot at John F. Kennedy. The available evidence is that he was. You have not offered any evidence that he was not.
Do you have such evidence? Or are you making a different claim, and if so, what is that claim, and what is your supporting evidence for it?
TrueSkeptic:
“Let’s not be too naive here. : )”
Please stop with the passive-agressive, arrogant, pretentious crap.
“What do you do for a living. This has nothing to do with the rest of this I’m just curious about someone who did physics working financial fraud. I went from criminal justice to accounting. Just curious you can tell me to fuck off if it is out of line. I won’t mind.”
That’s OK – I am not shy.
I am an attorney with my own law firm and we specialize in representing victims of financial fraud (and legal malpractice). In doing this for about 25 years, you get a heightened sense for BS, cover-ups, lying etc. I also conduct investigations all the time, and know what a proper investigation should look like. And I have a pretty decent background in science.
How did I go from A to B? Well – simple story really. As a freshman I knew that I would go into law. Always had a passion for justice.
When the pre-law advisor (who happen to be a Math Professor) addressed the pre-law students during freshman week – he raised the issue of what to major in. He quickly dismissed the popular notions that Polly Sci, Economics, sociology as somehow being pre-Law majors. He said that was rubbish.
He said there are no course prerequisites for law — unlike medical school. He said – you are in college – study what interests you. He said that what would be helpful in law school as skills – are reading and writing analytically. He said that English, History, Philosophy can be good for this but so can math and science. I come from three generations of doctors – so science was very much stressed growing up and physics was my favorite. And I was always interested in philosophy – sort of connected to the whole justice thing.
The physics department offered a “biophysics” curriculum as a major. This was good for me, because I had no interest in the labs, as I had no intention of staying in science. So instead of a number of labs, I had to take a year of Biology, Chem, organic Chem and Biochemistry.
All in all, I thought of it as a renaissance like education. It was good.
“I just find it strange that religious faith in the government should be a theme on a skeptics’ site. Just seems backwards.”
See. This is a big clue that you’re just trying to play Devil’s Advocate here, or stir crap up. No where on this site or any other related site has”religious faith” in the government.
“The only issue on the table is whether Oswald was the only gunman who shot at John F. Kennedy. The available evidence is that he was. You have not offered any evidence that he was not.”
Well your statement that the evidence only points to Oswald is just wrong. And you don’t really need me to tell you that.
And you don’t get to define a new issue different from what I raised. The question I raised is whether or not one should be skeptical of the government’s claim that Oswald was the only gunman. What’s your answer to that? Should you be skeptical of the government’s story?
Now your point about “available evidence” is a good one, because the government has admittedly taken great steps to keep the evidence sequestered from the public.
How does one in the scientific world regard claims by those who refuse to release the evidence in support of their claims? Maybe with skepticism?
The FBI fabricated evidence. How does one in the scientific world regard the claims of those who fabricate evidence. Maybe with skepticism?
I would tend to say “yes.” What about you?
TrueSkeptic,
I highly suspect that you are a troll, but I’ve been most impressed with other people’s responses so far. They have been very mature and engaging and the details they have provided have helped me learn a little about the JFK assassination that I did not know before.
“The FBI fabricated evidence. ”
You have provided no evidence to support this assertion.
If your only evidence, that the FBI fabricated evidence, is the Lead Bullet Analysis, then you are on thin ice.
Also, you just brought up the new issue. I would say of course we should be skeptical of the governments story, and that Oswald was the gunman, of course we should be skeptical of the moon landing, or 9/11…but being skeptical means looking at the evidence, and the evidence says, hey they were right on all of these issues.
Being skeptical about the government isn’t saying that the government story is incorrect; it is simply saying that you won’t take their word for it you will look at the evidence. And I never made it my point to say that the government did a good job in their investigation, or that the Warren Commission got it 100% correct. I stated that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. Nothing that you have said points away from that.
What I see from conspiracy theorists is they get hung up on one point and that one point in their mind proves everything else, even if it is incorrect or small. “9/11 Truthers” have their fire cannot melt steel garbage; “Moon Landing hoaxers” have their stars in the sky and shadow angles; you have the lead bullet analysis.
Along with everything else, because we don’t believe that your evidence is enough, we are ignorant and deserving of your chiding and condescending attitude. You have nothing to say of any value and added nothing to the discussion other than derision and pointless commentary while we did all of the work you should have done. If you want to have an adult conversation on the subject bring something to the table, if not then I am done here.
TrueSkeptic – is there a conspiracy theory you don’t believe?
Although I think quack medicine is the most clear and present danger deserving of Skeptical attention, the wacky world of conspiracy theory exerts a pernicious and dangerous influence on the public psyche. Some notable conspiracy theorists:
Adolf Hitler (and no, he wasn’t an atheist).
Heinrich Himmler (neither was he).
Osama Bin Laden.
The 9/11 hijackers.
The 7/7 London bombers.
Timothy McVey.
The KKK.
Please add your own.
Life is not an episode of the X-Files.
What’s your answer to that? Should you be skeptical of the government’s story?
———-
Yes. And I was. So far, it holds up. The best–in fact, all of the available evidence–points to Oswald as a single shooter.
Are you suggesting that you have new evidence I should consider? If so, what is it?
Kimbo,
What is a troll?
Sorry, that should be: “The best–in fact, all–of the available evidence”
“I highly suspect that you are a troll, but I’ve been most impressed with other people’s responses so far.”
I agree that the level of bashing and insulting that usually follows one questioning the government on certain hot-button topics is relatively restrained here.
I’ve seen this “troll” insult before, and I suspect it has some nuanced meaning beyond the ordinary definition, but I confess I am not hip to that one. : )
@Gabrielbrawley & TrueSkeptic
Internet Troll
TrueSkeptic,
I only expressed my suspicions…of which you were free to look up the definition, if necessary, and respond (incidentally, Gabriel, a troll is someone who stirs things up by posting aggressively and/or emotionally to goad others, but contributes little to the actual discussion).
I have this suspicion because, TrueSkeptic, you have not made any clear arguments supporting your point. You have asked question after question from the others without answering any yourself. You have produced non-sequiturs as responses. You have made sweeping generalizations with no evidence. You have let Appleman (and others) do all the research for you. You have made assumptions about people without them having said anything to support such assumptions. And you have generally contributed in an exceedingly passive-aggressive, blatantly aggressive, and arrogant manner.
My suspicion and skepticism of your intentions are based on all of the above. If you’d like to clarify your position by providing actual facts and evidence, rather than generalizations followed by demands for the others, I’ll read it.
Josh K,
Oh, that’s what it means. Thank you.
Kimbo,
Thank you also.
Seth –
I applaud you for being skeptical of the government’s story – there is ample cause for this.
As for the story holding up to date, let’s put that into perspective. Based upon the available evidence out there today, the government would not have one chance in 1000 of convicting Oswald.
The reason for this simple. Oswald effectively denied the crime. There is no eyewitness. The physical evidence linking his general location at the time of the shooting to the location of the alleged murder weapon was fabricated by the government. The government refuses to release the results of its investigation (which should be benign if it incriminates Oswald).
I could go further into the evidence regarding the rate of the shots, the “magic” bullet, the probable trajectory of the kill shot, but it would not be necessary to do so. Most judges would not allow the case to go to the jury and no jury would convict. You very simply cannot fabricate and conceal evidence and get a conviction. I have tried many jury cases. If you tried to put that case on – you’d get destroyed.
The case against Oswald is just bare speculation. It does not rise to the level of proof in a legal or scientific sense.
What I object to – and I would hope that people who espouse critical thinking and skepticism would agree – is that people who question the government’s conclusion should not be ridiculed with the meaningless label of being “conspiracists.” Governments have a very long and distinguished track record of lying to the people. So you do not start from the premise that they are telling you the truth, when the evidence is not there.
Pretty straightforward stuff. But the whole JFK thing is really not my issue. Protesilaus threw it out there and it supplied an easy example to work with.
“The physical evidence linking his general location at the time of the shooting to the location of the alleged murder weapon was fabricated by the government.”
Provide some evidence for your assertions.
“the wacky world of conspiracy theory exerts a pernicious and dangerous influence on the public psyche”
Appleman,
What does that mean? What are you referring to and what is your evidence of this psychological damage?
One of the all-time conspiracy theories is the belief in a benevolent, divine being. I’d have to check – but I am pretty sure that the evidence regarding this unverifiable conspiracy is that it often has a psychologically therapeutic benefit for individuals who believe in it. (Whereas in the hands of governments it has often supplied yet another convenient excuse for waging war.)
Would it have been a “pernicious and dangerous” conspiracy theory to have supposed that the North Vietnamese really did not attack our ships, but instead the government concocted the whole thing in order to take the nation to war?
I mean that was a government conspiracy. The people should not question the government on such matters? Is that what you find dangerous? Because I could quote to you the founding fathers who said the failure to question and challenge the government is what is dangerous. Not the other way around.
So where is the real danger and harm? Questioning the government or ridiculing those who do so?
I’ll get to your request for more examples. But your question – “Do I believe in all conspiracies?” – makes as much sense to me as asking – do you believe in all scientific theories? Do you believe that all defendants are guilty?
There is no proper generalization here. Each case stands or falls on its own merits – using critical analysis, critical thinking, evidence.
“Questioning the government or ridiculing those who do so?”
We question the fact that you have yet to back up any of your assertions with evidence.
No one has made anything like a statement that we should trust the government blindly.
No one is interested in your straw men.
Dude, did you really call out that tired old rate-of-fire crap? Why don’t you come on down to the rifle range with me, and I’ll pop out hits at the same rate and distance for you all day long. I wasn’t ever a Marine or anything.
“I could go further into the evidence regarding the rate of the shots, the “magic” bullet, the probable trajectory of the kill shot, but it would not be necessary to do so. Most judges would not allow the case to go to the jury and no jury would convict. You very simply cannot fabricate and conceal evidence and get a conviction. I have tried many jury cases. If you tried to put that case on – you’d get destroyed.”
Now we get some things:
Reenactments clearly show that Oswald could fire all of the bullets required on the day.
You got to be kidding me about the “Magic” Bullet theory, but make specific outlines of your claim and we will dissect.
Probably Trajectory:
Head moved back and to the left, based on the caliber of the round and the distance and Physics (which you should know) all of this is consistent with shots fired from the book depository, if you don’t think so cite your evidence and I will cite mine.
Now if a jury would convict, based on the knowledge of how many people buy into JFK conspiracy theories, if he had a lawyer like Cochran then I would believe you. As for fabricating evidence, you have no proof of that, other than baseless speculation which would be true to all of the scientific literature and population.
Oswald murdered a police officer. Was that the action of a patsy?
“This is a blatant false dichotomy. There are hundreds of studies that are overturned every year by new evidence. Are you postulating all of them are committing fraud?”
No – Protesilaus – I said it was fraud in this particular case. Not all scientific error equals fraud, but it does here. The false dichotomy applicable here would be to say that some scientific error is innocent – so therefore the error here must be innocent.
Suppose in the JFK case, they developed for the first time the technique of blood-typing. Types O, A, B & AB.
It would be like saying Oswald having type O blood and there being type O blood on the rifle in the book depository shows that it was Oswald’s blood on the rifle.
You cannot make that assertion until you have run studies to determine the statistical variation of different blood types within the population. This is so simple a proposition that it could not possibly have been missed by modern scientists.
The same is true for matching lead. The FBI claimed that it was able to match the lead in the impact bullets to the unspent cartridges to show one came from the other. You cannot possibly make that claim without first verifying it and if you attempted to verify it – it comes up false. Plain and simple.
You have any experience or background in science?
More assertions sans evidence. TrueSkeptic is a waste of time.
The case against Oswald is just bare speculation. It does not rise to the level of proof in a legal or scientific sense.
————
Sigh. You say that, and then you mention “rate of fire”, thus demonstrating that you won’t let go of false beliefs, even after proof has been offered. I think its clear who the skeptic here isn’t.
“Dude, did you really call out that tired old rate-of-fire crap? Why don’t you come on down to the rifle range with me, and I’ll pop out hits at the same rate and distance for you all day long. I wasn’t ever a Marine or anything.”
Really? On a moving target through a tree. I’d take that bet in a heartbeat and give you odds. You may not be a Marine, but the former governor of Minnesota was Navy Seal. I listened to him say that he stood in the window, surveyed what the shots would be, and said – “no way.” Between you and him … I’d put my money on him. But either way — the matter is clearly open to question.
And why does everyone on skeptic sites have the same opinion on such a topic? It’s not science vs. religion. Science vs. quackery. Science vs. vodoo. It’s an unproven criminal matter – where the government could, but refuses to put on it’s case.
How does a suspicious government criminal case become a cause for scientific skeptics?
Come down, then.
On another note, please, PLEASE… point out where the people on this site uncritically accept the word of “the government.”
Really? On a moving target through a tree.
—————–
Oh, come on. Again with that chestnut about the frackin’ tree? Are you high on crack?
Again: you are clearly someone who will not change his beliefs when confronted with actual evidence.
“You say that, and then you mention ‘rate of fire’, thus demonstrating that you won’t let go of false beliefs.”
Seth –
What false belief would that be?
Unless I am missing something – you are equating something being possible with something being true. There’s a big difference.
When performing scientific investigation, you don’t stop when you have determined that something is possible. The fact something may be possible – does not prove anything. It’s possible that god exists.
Believe me – the rate of fire issue does not favor the government’s case. We call this a weak point that must somehow be overcome. It’s not a point the government would even raise if it could be avoided — trust me, this is a point for the defense.
But like I said – you never get there, because nobody — and I mean nobody — makes false claims of evidence and conceals evidence and wins.
Government to Seth: “We’re not going to show you our evidence and our investigation results. Ok, and we also kind of screwed up on the whole lead matching thing that we invented for this case. But you trust us – right? You’re not skeptical of us – are you?”
Seth to Government: “Whatever you say.”
Government to Seth: “That’s a good Seth.”
That’s actually an example of an appeal to authority. A false dichotomy is when you make two independent claims and say that if one of them is false, then the other must be true. Independent claims must be proven true or false on their own merit.
In your case, you’ve made this claim:
The two claims are:
A) They knew the science was wrong, or
B) they did not do basic testing
But I read the summary of the report Appleman linked to, and it sounds to me like they actually confirmed, in 2004, that it is a valid technique, and the best available:
So when are you going to start backing up your claims with evidence? Or are you just going to keep making more wild claims and avoiding our questions?
My personal favorite is the appeal to the Governor of Minnesota, as if that’s not a government office. Why accept this guy’s comment without skepticism?
What false belief would that be?
———–
The belief that the rate of fire is impossible, difficult, or unusual for a trained gunman familiar with that weapon. It is not.
You insist that it is. Therefore, you are not a skeptic, you are a nutjob.
Actually, that is unfair. He may be a poorly informed skeptic. Mea Culpa.
“So when are you going to start backing up your claims with evidence?”
I have a better idea. Let’s start backing up what we say with money. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is.
Here’s the bet for you. The lead matching claims asserted by the FBI were false. They have been discredited and they are no longer in use, and convictions based upon its use are being overturned. The FBI claims were junk science.
Testing of lead is of some limited benefit — like blood type — per my above example. But it never was the match it was claimed to be.
I’ll bet you $1,000.
And Rystefn, if you have access to the same model rifle, and you can hit a simulated moving target at the same height and distance, within the same time frame – I’ll give you 3 chances (3-1 odds) and I won’t put a tree in your way. $1,000.
We can make it $10,000 if you like. We have an old saying, money talks and bullshit walks.
I think I see you guys walking.
Let’s not get into the JFK assassination. It is a never ending “I said, you said, I never said that.”
That’s why I don’t go there anymore. It is completely unproductive and humorless.
There are plenty of appropriate forums for discussing the assassination (fortunately, some of them are moderated). This blog is about science.
I don’t have access to it, but if you can provide one and allow me three days with which to familiarize myself with it (much less than LHO had), I’ll accept.
“And Rystefn, if you have access to the same model rifle, and you can hit a simulated moving target at the same height and distance, within the same time frame”
I saw it done on TV in a reenactment.
Were they part of the conspiracy too?
OMG it’s an old-fashioned shoot-off! Or something…
I don’t have access to it, but if you can provide one…
——————–
After all, providing a similar model rifle should be relatively easy for a guy with 10 grand to throw away.
I’ll judge, if this event is held in the continental US. Anyone here will tell you I am definitely NOT biased in Rystefn’s favor.
Now we just need to set up some kind of proxy to hold the money…
On another note, please, PLEASE… point out where the people on this site uncritically accept the word of “the government.”
Well I could give to you many examples, but why leave this one?
Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?
Why do you uncritically accept this, when the FBI got caught falsifying evidence and the government will not let you see their evidence.
Under these conditions, why would you just accept what they say?
I have a lot of clients who get taken by financial frauds who are so trusting – but they tend to be elderly widows and they do not brag about their skepticism.
TrueSkeptic, why do you keep bringing up the lead analysis over and over again? We all know it is junk science. Of all the evidence in the JFK case, the lead evidence, if even it were accurate, was the least useful anyway.
And Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window.
Crap. I just violated my own request.
What makes you think I do? I’ll be you $10,000 you can’t find a place where I’ve indicated such a thing.
Put your money where your mouth is. Money talks and bullshit walks, as you say. Let’s see who’s walking away now, dick.
Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?
————–
I don’t. “Acting alone” is different than “being the only gunman.” He was clearly the only gunman. It is possible he was hired, or that he was given inside information, or whatever. But those are separate issues.
“Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?”
Who the fuck are you to tell people that they uncritical believe the government story?
You don’t know how people here came to think that LHO probably acted alone.
No one ruled out that others may have been involved.
All people are saying is that the evidence points to LHO doing it alone.
Nothing you have posted does anything to say otherwise.
For a science guy you sure don’t have the first clue how to evaluate evidence.
TrueSkeptic, you have accomplished the impossible. Rystefn and I are on the same side in an argument.
It’s a Skepchick miracle!
spurge, it’s his paranoid personality. If you disagree with anything he says then you are a government lackey, worthy of his insults and derision.
TrueSkeptic, get tested for TLE.
Damnit! I was fine until you said something. Now I HAVE to argue that it was a conspiracy of some kind.
Or that it never happened at all, and was some kind of mass hallucination. I think I can muster up a better argument for that one anyway, honestly.