Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[John Iacoletti]

You're down to trying to argue that Cecil Kirk could not have concluded or determined anything because he didn't use a methodology that you approve of then.

My approval is irrelevant.  He didn't use a methodology, period.

By the way, human beings have very good pattern recognition abilities. If you see someone you know, even under circumstances in which you don't expect to see them, you recognize them instantly without the need to formally measure any part of them. Don't think that we wouldn't be able to recognize the same gouge in different photographs.

You mean the way Seth Kantor recognized Jack Ruby at Parkland?

Also, you are incorrect about the use of the photography panel's measurements.  They used a series of "identifying marks"  --dings, dents, divots, and scratches, labelled "A" through "W"-- for specific identification. Those marks are listed in Table 7 in the report, and they are what that the panel used to determine that the CE139 rifle in the archives is the same rifle shown in the Alyea film, 11/22/63 news photos, and photos of the TSBD rifle taken by the DPD. Those marks were not measured.  The photography panel did make a set  of measurements of the relative locations of certain parts of the rifle along the length of the rifle. However,  those were used to show that a line of argument used by Jack White was based on fallacious reasoning and weren't used to identify a specific rifle.

Right.  They were examining the effect of perspective on the apparent length of the rifle in the backyard photos and they showed their work.  When it came to "mark S" (the only one claimed to be "visible" in CE133A, Kirk regressed to handwaving.

Oh, also by the way, you apparently didn't notice this bit from that portion of the report: "significantly, the largest and most prominent mark, mark S, a gouge mark that appears on the backyard picture, also appears in the gun as it is portrayed in the Alyea movie sequence and in three other postassassination photographs of the rifle as well. See table 7."

No, I didn't miss it.  Now, if you can even find it in CE 133A, show how it is "identical in every respect", and not just roughly in the same area.  Cecil Kirk certainly didn't.

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch Todd: IIRC, Shaneyfeldt testified as to what he was using, and that was CE133A and B, but mainly CE133A. He never mentions CE134.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.

In the larger picture, you've claimed that "In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." Isn't it up to you to show that Kirk had 'no friggin idea'? And wouldn't Shaneyfelt's own testimony be evidence otherwise?

[John Iacoletti]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.

I didn't argue that he used anything else.  Mytton argued (with no evidence) that he didn't use CE134, even though the HSCA panel admitted that it was just an assumption.  And damn the luck: the negative allegedly used to produce CE134 is "missing".

[Jerry Freeman]

I have no fixation. I don't post here day after day after day. I average about .5 posts a day. I go for numerous days without posting.

Who cares?

[Jerry Freeman]

Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box...

No it didn't. Do you mean CE 139? Do you mean Hidell's rifle? Show me the serial number of that rifle in the back-yard picture.
Same old Mytton...proof by declaration. Guilt by accusation.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.

In the larger picture, you've claimed that "In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." Isn't it up to you to show that Kirk had 'no friggin idea'? And wouldn't Shaneyfelt's own testimony be evidence otherwise?

His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't argue that [Shaneyfelt] used anything else [but CE133A].  Mytton argued (with no evidence) that he didn't use CE134, even though the HSCA panel admitted that it was just an assumption. 

What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.

It all adds up to one thing: Kirk did have at least "a friggin idea" that Shaneyfelt didn't use CE134. And, no, Kirk and McCamy did more than just assume that Shaneyfelt only kept to CE133A & B.

And damn the luck: the negative allegedly used to produce CE134 is "missing".

..And, failing all else, you now you try to change the subject again, this time betting the house on a wisp of cheap insinuation. How quickly falls the "Mr Rational" facade you try so hard to maintain. 

[John Iacoletti]

But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.

I did? When?

I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.

That’s a false appeal to authority or popularity, and fundamentally flawed. It actually matters what these conclusions are based on.

His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded).

Speak for yourself, dude. So you don’t know what evidence actually shows that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you believe it because that’s what they concluded?