Where did I state that I believe such a thing? I believe very much the contrary. I'm saying that's what appears to be common among JFK conspiracists -- that there is no interest among them to actually solve the crime.
If that is your impression, there's nothing I can do to educate you. That is up to you to familiarize yourself with the literature.
No need for hostility. Simply state what the point was and the argument you believe supports it. By the strikethrough you apparently tried to draw some parallel, but since you opted for cleverness rather than clarity, I'm asking you to state the argument clearly.
I stated my argument simply and clearly: your claiming I didn't and trying to force me to repeat the same posts over and over again makes it obvious you aren't interested.
See post # 258
Double standards, special pleading. Stop evading. Answer the question.
You're shifting the burden of proof. Commonly held and widely understood does not mean it is mandatory in this instance. There are plenty of other means of discovering facts, similarly widely understood and commonly practiced. Why, among all those, have you selected a legal standard of proof (and I assume you mean the reasonable doubt standard) to use outside a courtroom?
Not at all - the burden to 'prove' Oswald is a murderer or that mark lane is a liar lands squarely on the shoulders of those who assert such propositions, not on people who are unconvinced.
I haven't suggested anything is 'mandatory' - do try to avoid making strawman arguments and attributing them to me.
Because a crime under investigation follows different rules than a crime being tried in a court of law. The former rules are more lenient and directed toward a different end -- i.e., the synthesis of a number of plausible scenarios from the evidence. The purpose of the court trial is not to discover fact in general, but to discover fact relevant only to one particular defendant -- i.e., to test one scenario and that scenario only.
...yes, one might (if we accept
your standards) suggest that Oswald could be suspected of murder. The fervent;ly held belief that he is in fact guilty is not supported by such a lesser burden of proof. In my opinion, of course.
The reason I question your choice of standard here is that you claim to want to investigate the murder of JFK, but you apply a standard of proof that is only useful for attempting to exonerate one suspect.
What I suggested was that the standard of proof I would like to use in exonerating Oswald is the standard which you have just now agreed is exactly the sort of standard useful for exonerating a suspect.
So, what's your beef?
The burden of proof for which standard of evidence is appropriate for discussing the facts of the Kennedy assassination belongs to the person proposing the standard. You're proposing the standard, therefore it's your burden to defend the choice. Turning it back on your critics to say "why not?" doesn't satisfy that burden.
I can see that it will take quite a bit of work to get to the point where actual evidence is presented and argued, since this meta-discussion could be very lengthy, indeed.
And as I said, stop rewriting my arguments to suit what you want them to be. I'm not answering questions that follow only from stuff you just make up.
...and I will do the same.
Weasel words. You've spent page after page telling us how Ball's examination of Markham was irregular, suspicious, or questionable. Pick whatever words or sentiment you want that expresses how you characterized the bottom of page 310. But don't suddenly pretend you never made any such argument unless it is to withdraw it.
I would respond to this, but since it is a weasle-worded strawman, I'm not answering this loaded question.
But you insist that this "effort" is somehow salient (perhaps suspicious) in and of itself. You've suggested that Ball spoonfed her the "right" answer, and that she was poised to commit otherwise to the record but for his persistence. When I ask why the bottom of pg. 310 is salient and how you're able to know that this examination has the properties you attribute to it, you scramble to not have to answer.
I'm just averse to answering loaded questions based on your strawman mischaracterizations.
For the second time, not "strangely ignored" -- just placed in the proper context (i.e., the discussion at the top of pg. 311) that you seem to always leave out.
No, ignoring Markham's repeated denials wasn't really 'strange' - it's rather expected, unfortunately.
Because I made a claim to that effect and you challenged it -- twice. If you want to withdraw your challenge, be my guest. Otherwise cough up the evidence of the broad support JFK conspiracism has among relevant historians.
More strawman on your part - you're really wasting a lot of effort and time re-writing my arguments to suit your tactics.
I didn't ask for a vote. I asked for evidence that your methods and conclusions are widely accepted among the relevant practitioners. It is important only that you bristled when I suggested they weren't. Withdraw your challenge, thereby admitting that JFK conspiracism is a fringe pursuit, and we'll be good to go. Otherwise supply the requested evidence and stop pretending the request is improper.
All this blustering is based purely on your misreading of what I do post.
You're getting worked up over nothing.
Link to the post where I claim to read minds. I noted that I observe a pattern among JFK conspiracists when arguing the point about standard of proof. You asked for evidence of that pattern and I gave you some. You tried to deflect it by saying it had nothing to with Oswald.
I'm willing to drop this discussion of your silly
ad hominem attacks on 'conspiracy theorists' any time you choose.
No I haven't moved the goalposts. Rather you've finally abandoned the straw man you've been trying to foist. Now that you're finally playing on the same field as the rest of us, do you understand why I find it salient that in decades of investigation there has arisen no consensus whatsoever on any alternate suspects?
First it was 'no
interest among CTs to identify suspects' to 'no
consensus about who these alternate suspects are'.
Another goalpost successfully moved. Good job!
Congratulations, you've made one small step towards an understanding.
Yet when I ask you to name the other suspects that have been developed, you tell me you can't, you won't, and to do so would be irresponsible speculation.
I prefer to take things one step at a time - since we can't even agree on a 'methodology' it would be pointless to discuss evidence or make arguments you can't or won't even consider.
So make up your mind. Do you have other suspects or not?
I think there is evidence that points at the involvement of certain parties.
