Chris Kyle American Sniper

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

No, I really don't think there is any doubt beyond the most ridiculous conspiracy-theory level of nonsense. You seem to require people to explicitly state things in writing for them to be true, that kind of put you on the far side of reasonable.

How can it be conspiracy-theory level of nonsense when, rather than acquiescently accepting weak evidence, I just require proof that they actually said such things and that their words have not been altered and/or their meaning misunderstood. I just hope you're never the deciding member on a jury.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

And the New Yorker writer spoke to two of the people who had heard the story directly from Kyle, so I don't know what you're talking about. The D magazine writer confirms him hearing the story. And there are numerous others.

I asked you a simple question - why are this multitude of people who knew Kyle and were friends of his lying about claims he made? Why do numerous of them report that he told the same story? You have zero to say about that. If you wanted to have a philosphical discussion about the concept of absolute doubt you could have said so up front and saved everyone a lot of time.

In my first post in this thread I stated that I hadn't seen any decent evidence that confirmed that he did in fact make all of these claims. I thought maybe someone could point to more conclusive evidence. That hasn't happened. It's just more of the same, "numerous articles", all of which end up referring back to the same Michael J. Mooney articles, and "he said it to numerous people." Who? I've only come across two names, Michael J. Mooney, who seems to be the sole source of information about these claims in every article and Brandon Webb, who said that Kyle claimed he knew of the New Orleans incident but never claimed to be there himself.

So why are this multitude of people who knew Kyle and were friends of his lying about claims he made? Why do numerous of them report that he told the same story? Maybe they're not lying, maybe he made the claims. Or maybe they (whoever 'they' are) are fantasists who are trying to ensure that their idol lives up to his moniker of "Legend".

You obviously have strong feelings about Chris Kyle and that's fair enough. You made some very good and valid points earlier about personal responsibility and US foreign policy in the Middle East, yet then give so much credence to claims based on fairly weak evidence. You seem to have made your mind up on the veracity of these claims about Kyle based on your hatred of him and you're not willing to consider their veracity, which is unfortunate because if you did, you might actually end up finding stronger evidence which you could throw in my face. I've looked for such evidence but haven't found any so far.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

This isn't what you are doing. You are subjectively calling multiple independent first person sources "weak evidence". That shows a ridiculous amount of bias, especially considering Kyle has been exposed in open court as somebody who lied repeatedly in a self-aggrandising way which is consistent to these stories. Added to that the fact that the people who claim Kyle said these things had nothing against him and have not been shown to be liars and you are just being stupid.

Mooney is not the sole source for these claims. The New Yorker journalist spoke to two independent people who heard them from Kyle first person. That is in the quote I gave above. Did the journalist just make that up? Kyle also made the claim to fellow SEAL Marcus Luttrell who published it in his book while Kyle was still alive without Kyle's objection. Even his wife wouldn't deny that he had stated the carjacking story.

At this point you are just being absurd. Go ahead and believe that ALL THESE PEOPLE are making up the same story about a verified liar and tell yourself you're being "objective" if you want. What you actually are being is a tedious pedant.

Wow, in the same post you've finally actually pointed to another source (Luttrel) which adds some weight to your argument and also resorted to petty name calling. And here I was thinking I was engaging in a discussion with an adult. Joke's on me I suppose. Or maybe it's just the sign of someone without the wit and wisdom to keep a level head when someone doesn't completely agree with their view.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

SOURCE: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs

Where does the below above from the New Yorker reference Michael Mooney?

Sorry, I previously missed this question. To answer that:

In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”

SOURCE: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...the-crosshairs

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You don't deserve any further responses since literally everything you are typing has already been dubunked repeatedly. If you read above you claimed that:



I then quoted you the following from the New Yorker article in order to demonstrate than Mooney was not the sole source of the claims:


Your response now is to go off to cite a part of the article that does cite Mooney. So what? That's not what we were discussing. What we were discussing was your false claim that he was the sole source cited in these articles. Which he demonstrably, per above, was not.

Your stance that the fact that Kyle's statements should be regarded as 'hearsay' since he only said them to multiple people, several of whom were journalists is a standard that most people would regard as ridiculous and which would not even meet the test of 'hearsay' in a court of law, never mind in the world of public discourse.

You might have a slender point if (A) the people who make these claims had some reason to lie and (B) Kyle himself had not been exposed as a liar and a braggart or (C) Kyle had repudiated the claims during his lifetime, which he did not. Given that both of these are not true you are simply being a tedious pedant as well as someone who is repeatedly making false claims.

Ok, I think we've made some ground here. We've been going around in circles and I'll admit I haven't made myself completely clear but I think you should have been able to notice that I've also referenced Brandon Webb as a source and when I said Michael J. Mooney was the sole source, it was regarding the carjacking story. Brandon Webb is named as a source of the New Orleans story.

From all I've seen, nearly every reference to the carjacking is based on what Michael J. Mooney has said. I don't think this carries much weight to be honest. You've also pointed out that it was mentioned by Marcus Luttrell in one of his books and that this one was actually printed while Chris Kyle was still alive, yet he never denied it. This carries far more weight for me, yet is the only reference I can find to either of the claims that was printed while Kyle was still alive.

References to the New Orleans story come from a drunken meeting in a hotel suite. The named source from this story says one thing, two other unnamed sources say something slightly different.

I don't understand why you think that this would not even meet the test of 'hearsay' in a court of law. Surely it's the very definition of hearsay. The people claiming to have heard Kyle say these things have not done so under oath and are not subject to perjury or cross-examination.

But why would anyone lie? I can only speculate. Kyle might have lied while drunk to boost his own ego, his friends and fans might have lied to increase his legend, his detractors may have lied to discredit him or journalists may have lied to sell papers.

I apologise for being a tedious pedant and questioning what I read rather than mindlessly accepting hearsay as fact and naively believing in the integrity of journalists.

But ultimately, you believe know that Kyle definitely made these claims, I admit that I don't know whether or not he actually did.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You are truly insufferable. People who harp on about 'hearsay' as if it is some sort of argument against the credibility of a statement are the worst. 'Hearsay' is only deemed as inadmissable in a court of law if the people who heard and witnessed the statements cannot be called to backup their allegations. Otherwise "hearsay" is valid evidence. This is not the case here as at least two of the people who heard these statements directly from Kyle are reputable and present to answer any claims that they have fabricated. According to your standards just about every journalistic interview you read in a newspaper is mere 'hearsay'.

Give it a rest, you are being tedious beyond belief.

Just when I thought this was finished, you resurrect it to tell me to give it a rest. And I've tried very hard not to stoop to your level and resort to pathetic put downs and name calling, but the term troll comes to mind, as you say I'm insufferable, yet here you are again. But I won't label you as one as you clearly have very strong feelings on this subject so I don't think you're solely trying to wind me up.

So, just put my mind as ease and give me examples of where at least two people who heard these statements directly from Kyle and are reputable, have answered claims, under oath, that they have been fabricated.

I'm not saying that they haven't, but I can't find any examples so I'm just asking you to show me.

Just as an example, a number of Kyle's SEAL buddies, such as Andrew Paul, claimed to have witnessed him knocking down Jesse Ventura. Does this make it true? Even though he later admitted that he didn't actually see it? I'm not trying to say that Kyle wasn't lying here but just because people say they saw it, doesn't mean that they did. Of course, they had to be cross-examined in court, under other before they admitted the truth.

I don't know why you get so upset that I expect a higher level of verification to you. As for treating every journalistic interview I read as hearsay. Not exactly but I don't treat them as gospel either. Journalists, for whatever reason, sometimes get things wrong. That's why you sometimes see apologies, retractions and libel and slander cases. I personally know of people who have given interviews to one source, only for another source to use that same interview to paint a completely different story.

So now I'll do as you order me to and give it a rest.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

The difference between the people you are talking about (Kyle's friends) and the people I reference is that they had an obvious motive to lie, since his estate was being sued and his reputation damaged, whereas the journalists and writers I cited do not. Most people wouldn't require that to be pointed out to them.

Oh, okay. Ignore everything else I said about journalists so. And thanks for pointing out to me that someone having a motive is the only reason there could be any sort of contradiction between something that was said and how it is reported.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Further, the multiple witnesses I mentioned about Kyle's claims all told the same story, so in order for them not to have heard these claims from Kyle they either have to be involved in some form of conspiracy or perhaps there is some form of cosmic synchromicity involved?

This is such shit, I just can't take you seriously any more.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Your "higher level of verification" is absurd simply because it is not a requirement professional level journalism or scholarship. It is your own trite and convenient standard that you have chosen to employ because your ego simply cannot for a second fathom that you may have madde a mistake in regard to this matter.

Why does it bother you so much that we have different opinions regarding levels of verification on these matters? A long time ago, I asked could you to provide better examples of proof that what Kyle is reported to have claimed, is in fact entirely accurate and has not (for whatever reason, be it memory error or deceit) been altered in any way and instead you've just repeated the same stuff again and again while completely disregarding any doubt I had as (insert snide remark here), akin to putting your hands over your ears going la la la la because someone dared to question you. And you say my ego cannot fathom that I may have made a mistake, yet I'm not the one claiming to know everything.

For example, I have pointed out that one witness said Kyle claimed to know of people who went to New Orleans to shoot looters. You pointed to another who said Kyle claimed to have shot 30 looters. To me, this leads to uncertainty. To you, it's clear that one example is most definitely accurate while the other can be disregarded because it suits you. Oh, but loads of people say it *puts hands over ears going la la la la*.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

So from this poorly written sentence it seems that you now require people to have sworn to have heard these statements under oath?

Is that not what you were getting at when you said "at least two of the people who heard these statements directly from Kyle are reputable and present to answer any claims that they have fabricated" and so, even as hearsay, it would be admissible?

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

But you're not at all a predant or being a tedious bollix, right? Right.

This is just pathetic and childish now. If you can't respond properly, don't bother responding at all.