[PREV - NOTHING_EVER_FITS] [TOP]
CORNER_OF_RFK_AND_SIRHAN
September 1, 2021
My favorite fanatic moderates over at
electoral-vote.com keep showing a I've always thought it
touch of whackiness about the Kennedy would be a cool urban
assassinations. design to have streets
in one direction named
Most recently they reviewed the after famous personages
evidence to confirm that RFK most and streets in the other
likely was assassinated by Sirhan direction named after
Sirhan and then they go on from assassins.
there to make some dubious
generalizations about all (I don't know why
conspiracy theories... no one seems to
like my ideas.)
You could have
intersections for
both "JFK and
Oswald" and "JFK
and CIA" to keep
everyone happy.
This seems to be coming from "Z" (aka
Christopher Bates, the historian)-- Z_NODS
That was here:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Aug31.html#item-6
He begins with the "nothing ever fits" principle
and proceeds to argue that any anomalies that NOTHING_EVER_FITS
the fans of the "second shooter" theory have
come up with are explainable and relatively minor
compared to the main facts (there were many
witnesses on hand, none report *seeing* a second
shooter; and Sirhan Sirhan actually confessed).
The best argument in favor of multiple shooters
turns out to be a fancy attempt at analyzing an
audio recording which claimed to have detected Shades of the HSCA: the
more shots than Sirhan Sirhan could've fired second investigation into
from his gun. the JFK assasination
concluded there was a
"... you can't actually hear any gunshots conspiracy, relying on a
on the recording. They have been high-tech analysis of the
'recovered,' using computers, by an audio lone recording of the scene
engineer named Philip Van Praag. ... " over a police radio (the
"Dictabelt" recording).
"A few other audio experts have supported
Van Praag's conclusions, but most have I've heard claims that
dismissed him, quite correctly pointing later studies repudiated
out that he failed to account for the fact this work.
that inside a closed space...sound bounces
around." I've got no opinon,
myself-- why would I?--
and don't think it's
Okay, so shorn of the verbal spinach the best evidence
and heavy spin from our friend Z, in any case.
what we've got is a case with dueling
experts disagreeing about a highly
technical subject, which is a pretty
common situation in the modern world.
Z here goes with a "majority rules"
principle for outsiders to interpret
this dispute. I don't object on this
case in particular, but I think that There have been times when
has problems in general (and I bet Z just going with the majority
isn't consistent about following this opinion of scientists would've
rule). got to the wrong answer, and
the scientific consensus later
When we come to the conclusions Z shifted to what was originally
wants us to draw from all this, a minority opinion.
things get worse:
But these scientific
"Anyhow, this is how it works revolutions are pretty
with conspiracy theories." rare, and the cases
where an outsider does
That's conspiracy theories in the better than the experts
plural, so he's using the RFK are very unusual.
conspiracy as emblematic of all:
"Go with the experts"
"You start with the things that do not remains an excellent
add up perfectly (because again, rule-of-thumb, but
nothing ever adds up perfectly)." it's *just* a rule
of thumb.
Even granting this, couldn't this be used to
*support* a conspiracy theory? A typical
conspiracy theory does have gaps in it, points
that may seem implausible, areas where the
motives of the players seem puzzling...
If someone objects about these litle gaps, couldn't
you just wave your hand and say "well, nothing ever
fits perfectly"?
If you're not supposed to be too fussy about details,
than you can't use just a few details to disprove a
conspiracy theory.
"Then you add in stuff that seems scientific and
rigorous, and appears to come from experts."
But this *does* come from experts doesn't it?
It's just that they all don't agree.
And it strikes me while technical proofs may
have an awe-inspiring "scientific" vibe for
some people, they also seem mysterious
enough that anyone who wants to distrust the It is also not at all unusual
conclusions can find reason to so so. for the opponents of a
"conspiracy theory" to invoke
E.g. it's difficult to confirm whether the technical experts--
experts involved are acting in good faith if
you yourself are not one of the experts. OSWALD_VOX_PIC
Technical proofs impress some because they Is that an okay thing
don't understand them, but are rejected by to do? Are we ever
others because they don't understand them. allowed to invoke
expert evidence?
"If you can wait 20-40 years, until
all the actual witnesses are dead or
are left with distant memories, all
the better."
This is a pretty random shot that makes absolutely no sense to me.
Did anyone *wait* before they started speculating about a possible
RFK assassination conspiracy?
And in the case of the JFK assassination-- remember, Z is
talking about conspiracy theories *in general* now-- I
think the strongest evidence comes from the medical staff
at the Parkland hospital, and for many of them we've got
their testimony *on film*. This is a case where people
like Z have somehow convinced themselves to ignore this
particular testimony... And you know, I don't think they
waited for the witnesses at Parkland to die first. Like
I said, this is a really random shot.
"There is, for example, the small issue that Sirhan
confessed to the crime. The 'explanation' there is that
he was coerced, so as to avoid the death penalty."
Well, I wouldn't say that I'd give *no*
weight to a confession, but Z's attitude here
is annoying: He puts the word 'explanation'
in quotes implying it's obviously ridiculous,
but really that's reasonable enough. If
you've got a confession *and* you have reason Remember,
to doubt the confession was true, then you "nothing
might very well presume that something like ever fits".
this is the case.
Or you might figure someone threatened his family
if he didn't falsely confess.
Or you might wonder if he was depressed and trying to
use the legal machinery to commit suicide.
And you might want to double-check if this is one of
those exceptional cases we're not supposed to talk
about because they hardly ever never happen where the
cops beat a confession out of someone.
And on the main subject, the question is not whether Sirhan was
innocent, but whether he had help-- why not confess to being
the sole assassin if you figure they've got you anyway? Maybe
he wanted to protect the other guys? Why not? They can only
convict you once, spreading the responsibility around isn't
going to help you beat the rap. "But they did it too!" doesn't
even work in kindergarten, let alone in a law court.
"Another problem is that there's no
great explanation for how a second
person could have pulled a gun,
fired it five times, put it away,
and got away without being noticed
by anyone on the scene."
"Another problem is that there's no
great explanation for how a second
person could have pulled a gun,
fired it five times, put it away,
and got away without being noticed
by anyone on the scene."
Certainly sounds like a good point...
But after learning a bit more about
the circumstances, it's not that hard
to get around it:
(1) RFK was being led out through the kitchen
at midnight, to dodge the crowds. The number
of witnesses is not huge.
(2) According to Wecht, the autopsy found
that the fatal shot was fired *from behind* WARREN_ALL_WECHT
and *at close range* (1-1.5in). That's
more consistent with a bodyguard-betrayal
scenario, rather than a oh-hello-sirhan
scenario.
(3) Even if Sirhan was the lone gunman,
the actual question is whether he had help--
did he have inside information about when
and where RFK was leaving, were some of
RFKs bodyguards ordered to hang back, etc.
"And that's before we get into
the folks who think that Sirhan
definitely did it, but he's [link]
innocent because he was a
Manchurian-candidate type ..."
Many people back then actually thought
that things like this were halfway Actually, it might be
plausible-- a lot of bad movies full of useful to sit down sometime
hypnosis and brainwashing and have you and compile a list of
heard about MK Ultra? things that sounded like
crazy conspiracy theories
But to state a point that should but are now historically
be obvious: the fact that some well established. MK
conspiratorially minded people Ultra, COINTELPRO,
have said some silly things does Iran-Contra...
not allow you to conclude that
every conspiracy theory is silly. THEORY_NO_MORE
Judging an individual speaker by an association
with some discredited group is at best a rule
of thumb, not a rigorous disproof.
And both the association and
the "discredited" status is
typically open to challenge.
"The ultimate point is this: The RFK conspiracy
theory, like most conspiracy theories that achieve
wide circulation, is an excellent example of the
selective (and somewhat dishonest) use of evidence."
Well, Z has argued reasonably well the use of
evidence here is "selective", but he has And I think Z
presented no evidence whatsoever that it's has presented a
"dishonest"-- but even if we grant that this selected set
particular case is selective and dishonest, Z himself, though
has also presented no evidence that this case I don't know
is emblematic of all conspiracy theories... that he's
distorted things
Myself, I concur that a lot of the conspiracy intentionally.
theories out there are nonsense-- there's been a
lot of bad ones in recent years-- but nevertheless,
I don't think it's a good idea to act as though
conspiracies are strange, unlikely events.
And I step carefully when someone like Z delves
into these waters, because he's somehow
rationalized away a position I regard as totally
untennable on the JFK assasination: he appears
to be a devout Oswald Alone true believer.
There's lots of odd little bits Z has deployed here
I could continue to quibble about-- verbal spin
that seems very dubious if carefully considered.
The title of this one is "FEAR in America, Part I:
The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy", where FEAR
is supposed to be an acronym for "False Evidence
Appearing Real."
Dorky at best. Overreaching at worst.
Excessively dismissive, I think...
I think he's going for an idea like:
But then, isn't it
"People believe FEAR because likely that some
it plays on their fears." people retreat from
fear to take shelter
in Mainstream Moderate
On the following day, Z did an update, beliefs?
sounding rather whiney and defensive
about the response he was getting from
the pro-conspiracy side--
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Sep01.html#item-2
"Yesterday, we did an item about the Robert
F. Kennedy conspiracy theories, and some of the And now I find
holes therein. Quite a few readers wrote in to myself wondering
point out that we had missed [X] inconsistency, what exactly they
or that our answer failed to fully answer [Y] said-- this "no
question. Some of those messages topped out at backsies" maneuver
over 1,000 words, which is about the equivalent isn't all that
of a standard college essay." impressive: your
details don't
But then, Z's initial post matter, mine do,
on the subject was almost The electoral-vote site so there.
exactly 1000 words.... is very verbose in
general-- some people
have complained about
this when I forward
links to it... "my
facebook friends are
never going to read
through all this".
"Those readers seem to have missed the point."
The point being, I think, that you're not supposed
to regard a point as significant if it contradicts
the Serious Moderate Worldview.
"... as we pointed in the very first paragraph
of that item, there are always inconsistencies
in the evidence. Not sometimes, not often, not
99.9% of the time."
And once again: even given this, why would you favor
one flawed story over another? Clearly: you try to
pick one with the least flaws, right?
"Humans are fallible, memory is fallible, and
extremely unusual and unexpected things happen
every day."
And you people are oh-so silly for regarding your
discrepancies as more important than the ones we
regard as highly significant.
"These inconsistencies are often unresolvable,
particularly if the conspiracy emerges long
after they might meaningfully be investigated.
I wonder a bit about a historian arguing that
stuff that's a half century old isn't worth
thinking about in any detail.
--------
[NEXT - Z_NODS]