Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Roger]

Okay.... I watched it once, didn't read any comments except something about blaine putting his hand through a window, so I knew that much was coming.

First thing I noticed is that we're on a street, maybe New York, he's holding a woman's hands and she has cards in her hands. He says (obviously narrated by him later) something about the cards are a distraction and to keep your eye on the wristwatch, but I didn't get a clear look at whether there was a wristwatch or not... I assume there must have been.

He makes some quick motion and talks about the cards and I confess I don't remember what he says after only one viewing. (My wife called after my one viewing distracting me even more). But I noticed no wristwatch when he removes his hands.

They then walk over to the Jewelry store, he makes some comment about it being closed and he always wanted to do a trick involving a jewelry store. At some point she notices her watch inside the display case, on the other side of what is apparently the glass window. He bends down and picks up a piece of newspaper that seems to have no holes in it, puts the paper to the glass and inserts his hand through the paper and window, grabs the watch, pulls his hand back through and gives her the watch while they marvel. The man who is apparently with the woman takes the paper and sees a hole in it but there is no apparent hole in the glass.

One thing I did pick up on was a guy who walks behind the woman quickly after Blaine had made a quick movement with his hands as she's holding the cards. AFTER seeing the guy walk past I thought... hmmm I wonder if he was an accomplice.

But it's a great trick. I would like to see it in higher resolution, but it looks like Blaine actually puts his hand through a window. If I had been there, I would like to examine the window.

If you're wondering whether my account omits crucial details, adds others, changes the order of events, and otherwise supplies a report that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means, the answer is, of course it has to, since I do not know the trick. People do not put their hands through windows. So is my account reliable? No! That's the point. Elements of my account may be accurate... he probably did hold the woman's hands, a guy probably did walk behind the woman, they probably were on a street, etc. etc.

But the point that gets lost in this is that your theory just assumes that your Book of Mormon witnesses are like me. Someone who's innocently watching a guy do a trick and then reporting on it as accurately as possible. That is simply not the case with the primary Book of Mormon witnesses, which is what this discussion is about. They are heavily invested in the trick--whether they know it is a trick or not.

To make a more accurate analogy, you'd have to ask Blaine's wife what she sees. You'd have to examine her reports and then decide if you want to believe her when she says, no, look, I've known him for years and he really can put his hand through windows. And then you'd have to make a decision. Is she lying to me? For Pete's sake, I don't think people can put their hands through windows, but this is Blaine's wife, after all and she seems honest enough.

That's the scenario you're dealing with here. The people you want to believe are just innocent observers giving accurate testimony of the trick they were witnesses of, were instead heavily invested in what they are testifying to.

[_GlennThigpen]

But the point that gets lost in this is that your theory just assumes that your Book of Mormon witnesses are like me. Someone who's innocently watching a guy do a trick and then reporting on it as accurately as possible. That is simply not the case with the primary Book of Mormon witnesses, which is what this discussion is about. They are heavily invested in the trick--whether they know it is a trick or not.

---------------------------

That's the scenario you're dealing with here. The people you want to believe are just innocent observers giving accurate testimony of the trick they were witnesses of, were instead heavily invested in what they are testifying to.

Roger, you have yet to demonstrate that someone heavily invested in an undertaking would be unreliable witnesses to mundane events. You are heavily invested in the S/R theory, but that does not make you an unreliable reporter or inclined to lying to support your theory. The same goes for marge.

Also, you might read up on the history of those witnesses a bit. Many of them started out unsure of the claims that Joseph was making. They became believers along the way, as in the case of the Whitmers and Martin Harris. Martin Harris saw something that convinced him enough to mortgage his farm, against the objections of his wife, to pay for the first printing of the Book of Mormon. The Whitmers saw something that convinced them to open up their home to a stranger knowing the problems that he had faced and the problems that this action might bring upon their families. The stories of the visions and visitations of angels came later.

Maybe Joseph was a very cunning con man as Dan has suggested. However, being duped by a con man is not evidence of unreliability as a witness.

What Dan seems to be saying is just how good he thinks Joseph was. How easy it is to distract people to disguise the con that is being pulled off.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, you have yet to demonstrate that someone heavily invested in an undertaking would be unreliable witnesses to mundane events. You are heavily invested in the S/R theory, but that does not make you an unreliable reporter or inclined to lying to support your theory. The same goes for marge.

First, it's not the mundane events that are in question. It boils down to the fact that Dan wants to accept that the entire Book of Mormon was produced in the made-for-public-consumption version of how the Book of Mormon came to be--because that's what his witnesses tell us and some skeptics saw a show--when that version does not account for how the KJVB sections came to be and it has been clearly shown that the primary witnesses intentionally add elements to their testimonies that can't possibly be true in an effort to promote the cause.

Second, I shouldn't have to demonstrate what is simply common sense. You yourself understood that well enough to reject elements from the hypothetical scenario you came up with about Warren Jeffs. I agree with your instinct on that. You cannot trust every aspect of that testimony because you realize they are going to give you a pro-Jeffs version. That is simply common sense.

Third, I do not follow the S/R theory in the same way cult members follow their respective leaders. There is a huge difference. Cult members believe in the cause and in many cases (like Jim Jones) will even die for it. There's no way I'm dying for the S/R theory. It's a whole different ball of wax.

Also, you might read up on the history of those witnesses a bit. Many of them started out unsure of the claims that Joseph was making. They became believers along the way, as in the case of the Whitmers and Martin Harris.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying any of these people were evil. That's not my point. And I'm not saying many of them would have been in on a "fraud." In fact, as I've said before, I don't think ANY of them would have thought of it as fraud. I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery knew more than they let on. Even Dan might agree with that much. With regard to Emma, I think she knew more than she let on. Dan seems to think she was totally duped. I disagree. David Whitmer is a big question mark for me. He may indeed have been a dupe, but there are some things that make me think he might not have been. I'm pretty convinced that Martin was a dupe.

Martin Harris saw something that convinced him enough to mortgage his farm, against the objections of his wife, to pay for the first printing of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, he gets back from an Anthon visit and Joseph convinces him God had predicted it all in Isaiah. Martin was completely sold at that point.

The Whitmers saw something that convinced them to open up their home to a stranger knowing the problems that he had faced and the problems that this action might bring upon their families. The stories of the visions and visitations of angels came later.

The Whitmers were into folk magic and related to Joseph's use of a seer stone. I don't know how sincere they were. Like I say, I'm not sure one way or another. It's possible the immediate family were dupes and David was not. I tend to lean more toward the Whitmers as dupes, but they were all believers in folk magic and therefore biased in favor of Smith and as such willing to help the cause in whatever way they could--whether that meant offering a place to work or giving favorable testimony.

Maybe Joseph was a very cunning con man as Dan has suggested. However, being duped by a con man is not evidence of unreliability as a witness.

What Dan seems to be saying is just how good he thinks Joseph was. How easy it is to distract people to disguise the con that is being pulled off.

And the thing is, I don't disagree with Dan on that. My point is that it's even easier to deceive people when they are already prone to want to believe your con. The Whitmers were certainly favorable marks. Martin Harris was particularly gullible. But I am pretty sure Oliver knew more than the rest.

If Oliver is privy to inside information and Emma also knows more than she's revealing, that's all you need. In fact Emma could also be a dupe in the sense that she thinks Joseph is a prophet, and is willing to lie to support that notion. It doesn't matter how much they actually believed in Joseph's ability to receive revelation. In fact they probably did think he had some special powers in that regard. And I'm certainly not saying Joseph wasn't a good con-man. All I am saying is all Oliver has to know is that another seer is supplying them with ms pages from Ohio and those pages represent a legitimate translation by the person who found them with genuine revelation added by a great preacher who God is calling to do a great work in these latter days. That's all we need. We don't need some massive, underground, ever-expanding conspiracy. That's just a strawman version of S/R created by it's critics.

[_GlennThigpen]

If Oliver is privy to inside information and Emma also knows more than she's revealing, that's all you need. In fact Emma could also be a dupe in the sense that she thinks Joseph is a prophet, and is willing to lie to support that notion. It doesn't matter how much they actually believed in Joseph's ability to receive revelation. In fact they probably did think he had some special powers in that regard. And I'm certainly not saying Joseph wasn't a good con-man. All I am saying is all Oliver has to know is that another seer is supplying them with ms pages from Ohio and those pages represent a legitimate translation by the person who found them with genuine revelation added by a great preacher who God is calling to do a great work in these latter days. That's all we need. We don't need some massive, underground, ever-expanding conspiracy. That's just a strawman version of S/R created by it's critics.

However, you do not have evidence of any knowledge by Oliver of "another seer". You do not have your "smoking gun". Maybe a slingshot with nerf balls.

But you do have John Stafford going the other way for you.

John Stafford was the eldest son of William Stafford, one of those who provided the Hurlbut affidavits. He was later asked about the Rigdon connection:

Q — If young Joseph — Smith , Jr. — was as illiterate as you say, Doctor, how do you account for the Book of Mormon?
A — "Well, I can't; except that Sidney Rigdon was connected with them."
Q — Was Rigdon ever around there before the Book of Mormon was published?
A — "No; not as we could ever find out. Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out."
Q — Well; you have been looking out for the facts a long time, have you not, Doctor?
A — "Yes; I have been thinking and hearing about it for the last fifty years, and lived right among all their old neighbors there more of the time."
Q — And no one has ever been able to trace the acquaintance of Rigdon and Smith, until after the Book of Mormon was published, and Rigdon proselyted by Parley P. — Pratt, in Ohio?
A — "Not that I know of.""

— John Stafford, cited in William H. Kelly, "The Hill Cumorah, and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 167; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 2:123–124.)

And Artemas Cunningham needs some help also.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Maybe a slingshot with nerf balls.

I'm guessing Michael Jordon may have started with Nerf balls.

Your John Stafford and Artemas Cunningham arguments are so weak I don't even think they need to be responded to. You get an A for persistence.

[_GlennThigpen]

Maybe a slingshot with nerf balls.

I'm guessing Michael Jordon may have started with Nerf balls.

Your John Stafford and Artemas Cunningham arguments are so weak I don't even think they need to be responded to. You get an A for persistence.

In other words, you realize you have no plausible answer. If you realize that, you are improving.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Uhmm.... yeah Glenn. You got me. You hypothesize that Solomon would have to have written in the third person--except where it's a direct quote(!) and you can't find an "instance of Nephi speaking orally in such a manner" and because of something John Stafford was not aware of... I'm supposed to be convinced by that? Really?

A for persistence. F for substance. : )

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I have a question, where is the seance quote in your book, what chapter?

Chapter 23, p. 377, and p. 656, footnote 38. This is in conjunction with David Whitmer’s account of Joseph Smith describing his trip from Fayette to Harmony in detail, claiming to have seen him in his stone.

I will make a few brief remarks, but leave the discussion of what it means for Roger’s post. It’s not necessary to list every inaccuracy; I’ll focus on the one’s that matter most.

Ok I'll play.

I saw Blaine with 2 individuals a middle aged woman and man at night on a busy street ..with cars and people walking by..one person Blaine commented on the man walking by as being crazy which had to do with whatever the man said. Blaine was doing all the talking..while holding with both his hands both her wrists and she held 2 cards..with the face card facing Blaine.

This is out of order. After Blaine secretly took the watch off the lady’s wrist, then the strange man walks behind them making some comment about cards, distracting their attention. (hint) The order is significant.

I don't know what the trick with the cards was supposed to be..

It was just a distraction and a reason to get his hands on her writs.

I remember the woman nervously laughing and the man looking into the camera ..I'm not sure if the woman mentioned what the face card was supposed to be or how successful whatever trick he was doing was. There was a voiceover..that distracted my attention of that trick. The voiceover said something about "watch Blaine's hands or watch the woman's wrists..because a trick is about distraction". ..or something along those lines. I think it was Blaine's voice..added to the video later. At that point I did start to watch his hands on her wrists. It wasn't all the clear though.

When he takes his hands off her wrists and that trick is over ..he walks a few short steps I think it was around a corner maybe not it might have been behind the woman and man but a few feet to their right..

Impossible to tell how far away, but an edit made it appear close; it was probably a little farther than assumed. (hint) Important to accomplishing the trick.

and there is a jewelry store window. He directs them to following him all the while talking and shifting the conversation to jewelry. I don't remember the details of what he was saying. I believe it was something about he'd like to be able to take jewelery out of a store front window. But then he starts to talk about what is in the store window and how nice a watch is (I believe). He asks them to come closer and look at a particular watch in there..he comments how nice it is and after a closer look at it the woman says it's her watch. He asks if she's sure..she says yes. He asks again..she says yes. He goes to the store door and says it's locked.

He just looks back over his shoulder. When the watch is discovered in the window, Blaine repeats, “Is that really your watch?” The male friend says, “You just had it on your arm.” She says, “Yes.” Blaine says, “No, you just had it on your arm.” Of course, they didn’t know when the watch was taken, and assumed that it had just disappeared from her arm and appeared in the window—an assumption Blaine is eager to reinforce. That’s capitalizing on the situation. This is an example of something that can’t be planned for, but a good performer will exploit the opportunity. If you question the couple afterwards, undoubtedly they will say the watch magically disappeared from her wrist and reappeared in the window when Blaine was no where near her.

He pulls out a sheet of newspaper

He bends over right there and picks the paper up. (hint) This looks like an impromptu move, but it’s a strange place for a newspaper to be sitting, and exactly underneath the watch.

and says something along the lines of "I'll see what I can do". He puts the newspaper unfolded up against the window..they are standing to the right of him but slightly behind him. We see his hand it appears to go through the newspaper and through the window. ..as if the window was fluid.

(hint) If he could really put his hand through a window, he would need to cover the spot with a newspaper. Similarly, if the magician could really cut a woman in half, he would have to put her into a box. If spirits could move trumpets and tambourines, they could do it with the lights on. These things are unnecessary constructions or constraints that make the trick possible.

It looks like his arm went through but I thought the arm didn't look quite real, but that was just a brief thought and I didn't closely examine..he picks up the watch ..pulls arm out and out of newspaper and gives it to her. Both people are amazed and say he put his hand in the window and got the watch..I think to people walking by. Blaine made some sort of comment about the newspaper, either it had a hole or it didn't..not sure which.

He said the newspaper had a hole, but the window didn’t.

I'm not even sure if he actually removed a watch I believe my focus was on the arm and the surrounding fluid-like glass which only went in about 4 or 6 inches it appeared..the view of the arm inside was clear..not distorted...but I didn't really notice if the watch was removed.

The watch was removed and handed to the woman. The glass was ordinary glass.

This trick is actually based on a very simple principle that shows up in many applications, even some very cheap magic sets for kids. Blaine’s version is a very clever use of the principle.

Now, imagine how the story would change when you told it to someone 27 years from now, and then that person would wait 60 years to write it down. How confident are you that it would be recorded exactly like it happened? Most likely the newspaper will be dropped from the story and the glass will definitely appear like fluid. Now, imagine that someone would judge your character based on the final version recorded 87 years after the event? It’s asking too much of Emma’s ability to get it right in the first place, to remember it accurately after 27 years in the second place, and for Briggs to accurately record it in the third place.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Thanks for participating. As I did with Marg, I’ll just make a few observations. Afterwards, I’ll discuss what can be learned from it and respond to your objections, which I think are helpful in exploring the principles at work here further.

Okay.... I watched it once, didn't read any comments except something about blaine putting his hand through a window, so I knew that much was coming.

It doesn’t matter, just as long as you remained a dupe.

First thing I noticed is that we're on a street, maybe New York, he's holding a woman's hands and she has cards in her hands. He says (obviously narrated by him later) something about the cards are a distraction and to keep your eye on the wristwatch, but I didn't get a clear look at whether there was a wristwatch or not... I assume there must have been.

You mean writs. That’s important to taking the watch. You don’t see the watch because his hand is right over it, and the twisting movement of his hand is his undoing the clasp. It can’t be a watch that slips over the wrist.

He makes some quick motion and talks about the cards and I confess I don't remember what he says after only one viewing. (My wife called after my one viewing distracting me even more). But I noticed no wristwatch when he removes his hands.

They then walk over to the Jewelry store, he makes some comment about it being closed and he always wanted to do a trick involving a jewelry store. At some point she notices her watch inside the display case, on the other side of what is apparently the glass window.

As a historian, I would want to supplement this sparse account with Marg’s more detailed account, but you are in general agreement and I understand what you are describing.

He bends down and picks up a piece of newspaper that seems to have no holes in it, puts the paper to the glass and inserts his hand through the paper and window, grabs the watch, pulls his hand back through and gives her the watch while they marvel. The man who is apparently with the woman takes the paper and sees a hole in it but there is no apparent hole in the glass.

A “piece of newspaper” is confusing, although I gather that it’s large enough to put a hand through; it’s possibly one page of a newspaper that happens to be on the ground just below the found watch. Marg said he pulled it out, presumably out of a pocket. In either case, it was rather convenient to have it handy.

One thing I did pick up on was a guy who walks behind the woman quickly after Blaine had made a quick movement with his hands as she's holding the cards. AFTER seeing the guy walk past I thought... hmmm I wonder if he was an accomplice.

Probably, yes, as a distraction from a key move in the trick.

But it's a great trick. I would like to see it in higher resolution, but it looks like Blaine actually puts his hand through a window. If I had been there, I would like to examine the window.

You would have found that it was made of real glass. Notice even Blaine looks at the man walk away, which insures that the couple also looks at him.

If you're wondering whether my account omits crucial details, adds others, changes the order of events, and otherwise supplies a report that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means, the answer is, of course it has to, since I do not know the trick. People do not put their hands through windows. So is my account reliable? No! That's the point. Elements of my account may be accurate... he probably did hold the woman's hands, a guy probably did walk behind the woman, they probably were on a street, etc. etc.

But the point that gets lost in this is that your theory just assumes that your Book of Mormon witnesses are like me. Someone who's innocently watching a guy do a trick and then reporting on it as accurately as possible. That is simply not the case with the primary Book of Mormon witnesses, which is what this discussion is about. They are heavily invested in the trick--whether they know it is a trick or not.

Your account is reliable, except for the parts where you were fooled. That’s the point. You don’t throw out the witnesses account in toto just because it contains impossible elements. The fact that it contains those elements makes it more accurate than not. We don’t necessarily want to know how the trick is done. That is just one way to describe truth. Another truth is Emma’s, and David Whitmer’s, and Martin Harris’s—just as your description is your truth. That’s all you know, so far.

The difference between Blaine and Joseph Smith is that Joseph Smith’s trick involved a lifetime commitment if you couldn’t figure it out. Magic is safe because everyone knows what’s going on, but with psychics and the like its not safe. That’s why most debunkers are magicians and former magicians, because they detest the misuse and abuse of the principles. Learning magic is the high road to skepticism.

The witnesses were invested in the same way any victim is invested in a con; it’s what keeps them hooked. Investment doesn’t insure that they know the secret, anymore than the cameramen and producers to Blaine’s show have to know the secret.

I’m not giving this object lesson to prove the witnesses were dupes, only to show how dupes react when duped. This is a counter to the claim that Emma’s possibly describing things that are impossible is evidence that she lied and therefore most likely is not telling the truth about the stone in hat. My argument is that that conclusion is not imperative, since her description is also consistent with someone who was fooled. This conclusion is more likely since she is supported by other independent witnesses, one of whom (Whitmer) described the same element in less miraculous terms.

To make a more accurate analogy, you'd have to ask Blaine's wife what she sees. You'd have to examine her reports and then decide if you want to believe her when she says, no, look, I've known him for years and he really can put his hand through windows. And then you'd have to make a decision. Is she lying to me? For Pete's sake, I don't think people can put their hands through windows, but this is Blaine's wife, after all and she seems honest enough.

Of course the analogy breaks down at a certain level, because everyone knows Blaine is a magician—even his wife. I intentionally chose something simple and visual. Joseph Smith’s illusion wasn’t visual; it was psychological manipulation, similar to what psychics, remote viewers, and mind readers do--which is harder to demonstrate. It requires believers, because the illusion is created in the mind. It is difficult to recover the exact circumstance under which Emma believed Joseph Smith corrected her spelling, because all we have is her distorted memory—that is, if we accept the report as accurate. As I have previously discussed, the process as for Joseph Smith to read the translation, sentence by sentence, and for the scribe to write down and then read it back. Joseph Smith would either proceed to the next sentence, or he would make a change. No doubt the change was justified by Joseph Smith’s lack of education and being a bad reader, or the scribe had made a mistake. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to believe that in the process of dictating an entire book in this fashion that instances would arise where the believing mind might cease upon as a proof. A long pause between sentences (while Joseph Smith was thinking of what to say) might be explained as Joseph Smith waiting for the writing to disappear. At such times, the scribe might discover that something was spelt wrong or in their haste had left out a word and attribute the delay to that. In the telling, these kinds of things get magnified and prove the stone worked.

[_Roger]

Dan:

This trick is actually based on a very simple principle that shows up in many applications, even some very cheap magic sets for kids. Blaine’s version is a very clever use of the principle.

Now, imagine how the story would change when you told it to someone 27 years from now, and then that person would wait 60 years to write it down. How confident are you that it would be recorded exactly like it happened? Most likely the newspaper will be dropped from the story and the glass will definitely appear like fluid. Now, imagine that someone would judge your character based on the final version recorded 87 years after the event? It’s asking too much of Emma’s ability to get it right in the first place, to remember it accurately after 27 years in the second place, and for Briggs to accurately record it in the third place.

Well for us dupes, it's a pretty good trick. And I think it's a reasonable analogy but only up to a certain point and certainly not to the point you want to use it for. Marg & I witnessed the same thing, yet in attempting to describe what we saw, there will be differences, but that does not mean we saw something different or that we're lying about what we saw. I agree with that much.

But the fact remains that our little experiment here is simply NOT analogous to what you want to apply it to. You want to assume that Emma and Oliver and David were just innocent bystanders and objective reporters who are merely reporting what they saw to the best of their ability. You're assuming what you want to prove. That is absolutely not the case. That's why I said you'd have to add an extremely positive testimony from someone who is invested in Blaine's magic who tells us he really can put his hand through a window before you get close to an appropriate analogy. As it is, it simply assumes your honest dupes, when that is simply not the case.

So from what you stated--and not knowing the secret of the trick--I assume the newspaper was crucial to pulling the trick off. That is a key element then--even in a flawed analogy.

Let's consider this.... let's say we ask Blaine's wife--who gives every impression of being a true believer in Blaine's ability to put his hand through a window--for her own account of what she observes when she watches the same video marg & I watched. In order to make it analogous, we'd have to imagine her saying something very similar to what marg and I wrote, although very likely leaving out any key details that might give the trick away--like you say, Blaine takes advantage of whatever he can to reinforce the trick. Blaine's wife would also do this in our little hypothetical. Why? Well because even honest dupes "consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." But the fact is, because she is heavily invested she's likely not an honest dupe.

Regardless, whether Blaine's wife actually believes he can put his hand through a window or not is not the important question. Common sense would probably say, look, she knows the guy better than anyone else so she probably knows he can't really put his hand through a window! But the fact is, we can't read her mind. But, when she states something that in fact emphasizes a supernatural element in what she's describing in order to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means" we can then conclude that she is either:

A. likely intentionally stating things in such a way as to make Blaine's power seem all the more real. And the fact that she has a vested interest in doing so merely adds weight to our conclusion; or

B. just really, really gullible

The key point is that in either scenario her testimony is not going to be reliable except perhaps in the elements that line up with what the regular skeptics say--but even then it's questionable because even the skeptics could not figure out how the trick was actually pulled off! They just saw the same show that Blaine's wife testifies to! But they reject the notion that Blaine can really put his hand through a window while she goes out of her way to emphasize that he really can.

To illustrate, let's imagine she says:

and I've been to that Jewelry store many times and I know for a fact that's a solid window. And anyone can see my husband's hand going through it. It's the same thing I see him doing all the time. In fact, when we're at home, he often reaches through the china cabinet to get plates for dinner and he doesn't need to use a newspaper.

Now we're getting closer to a proper analogy. In this scenario, Dan says, okay, Mrs. Blaine, you seem like an honest woman and I don't want to call you a liar, so I'll just accept that your husband puts his hand through windows all the time at home without using a newspaper.

The skeptic, on the other hand, says, wait a minute! It's just too convenient that a newspaper was just sitting in the right place. That newspaper must conceal something!

Basing his conclusion on Mrs. Blaine's testimony, Dan says, no it wasn't because Mrs Blaine tells us he does it all the time at home with no newspaper.

Skeptic: Then what was the purpose of the newspaper?

Dan: To protect the watch from the gawking eyes of the public.