Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[tsig]

And when would be a good time?

All you have so far are angry posts about others making "rabid attacks" and "accepting on blind faith" in a tone that seems to be nothing more than childish foot stamping because others have taken the time to read the source material. If anything your long dull posts make it quite clear you are the one willing to accept and defend a writer on blind faith.


You keep saying you will be happy to let the readers decide. When exactly will you give them something other than your touching fan-rage over Lane to decide about.

A good time would have been any point before now. As now it seems you are so determined to misunderstand every post that Jay and IRatant have made on the nature of sources and depth of reading, that you have no other point to make and are trolling.

I have absolutely no doubt this post will be responded to in exactly the same blustering tone as every other. So I will not hold my breath for there being any point for the peanut gallery to actually want to make any kind of decision on. Perhaps you could continue in your quest for brushes you hope to tar all comers with, making bold assertions about their stance that are never supported by valid quotes....

Mor P-nutz, lez blistering blustering.

 

[BStrong]

Who knew Mark Lane had so many wives?

 

[proudfootz]

And when would be a good time?

All you have so far are angry posts about others making "rabid attacks" and "accepting on blind faith" in a tone that seems to be nothing more than childish foot stamping because others have taken the time to read the source material. If anything your long dull posts make it quite clear you are the one willing to accept and defend a writer on blind faith.


You keep saying you will be happy to let the readers decide. When exactly will you give them something other than your touching fan-rage over Lane to decide about.

A good time would have been any point before now. As now it seems you are so determined to misunderstand every post that Jay and IRatant have made on the nature of sources and depth of reading, that you have no other point to make and are trolling.

I have absolutely no doubt this post will be responded to in exactly the same blustering tone as every other. So I will not hold my breath for there being any point for the peanut gallery to actually want to make any kind of decision on. Perhaps you could continue in your quest for brushes you hope to tar all comers with, making bold assertions about their stance that are never supported by valid quotes....

Hypocrisy much?

You are extremely thin-skinned about language I use which is a mirror of the language used against me.

While tone trolling is a useful trade on the internet, it does nothing to establish Oswald's guilt of Kennedy's murder.

In fact, there is (at least) one very good reason to exculpate Oswald:

Paraffin casts indicate Oswald did not fire a rifle.

 

[proudfootz]

But he have meny meny big books methink?

Perhaps I should take a picture of my bookshelf and use that in place of supporting my arguments. Sauce for the geese...

Instead I have quoted testimony and showed the claim about Lane to be false.

 

[JayUtah]

...showed the claim about Lane to be false.

According to whom?

 

[proudfootz]

Awesome. Then we're finished here. Oswald's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the rational person.

Hahaha!

I am the rational person, yet I'm not convinced by this vague claim of yours.

 

[JayUtah]

I am the rational person...

According to whom?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hypocrisy much?

Not in the least.

You are extremely thin-skinned about language I use which is a mirror of the language used against me.

Please stop projecting. It is unsightly.

While tone trolling is a useful trade on the internet, it does nothing to establish Oswald's guilt of Kennedy's murder.

Trolling is not useful, nor is it a trade. So please stop. Nothing you are doing here establishes ANYTHING about Oswald, or the events of the JFK Assassination. All you have done has argued about language.

In fact, there is (at least) one very good reason to exculpate Oswald:

Paraffin casts indicate Oswald did not fire a rifle.

So not a very good reason at all.
Before we go back to the previous discussions of this very point in this thread and the predecessor perhaps you can save time and explain the difference between failing to a show a positive result and proving a negative? Does one always do the latter? Does the first do the latter in this instance and please provide evidence of why.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hahaha!

I am the rational person, yet I'm not convinced by this vague claim of yours.

Which vague claim. As the claims against your source were not vague. They were made quite plane and shown to be accurate in several posts, by several posters.

 

[JayUtah]

You are extremely thin-skinned...

Stop whining. To my knowledge you have submitted none of the alleged verbal violence against you for judgment by the moderators. You continue instead to claim -- for rhetorical effect -- you are being so badly mistreated (and thus you don't have to deal with their posts), and that your critics are somehow obliged to suffer your bluster as a necessary consequence for hearing your arguments.

In fact, there is (at least) one very good reason to exculpate Oswald:

Fringe reset. You have been thoroughly backed into a corner over Markham (no foundation for your opinion) and Lane (more examples of his lies posted, which you ignore). So you leave for a couple days and come back with a new claim.

Paraffin casts indicate Oswald did not fire a rifle.

Discussed thoroughly in these threads previously. Have you read this thread and the two that preceded it?

 

[proudfootz]

This is not a court of law. Some would find it sad if somebody were fail to wrap their head around that. There is "prosecution" in historical study, conversation, or critical thinking. As this is a sceptical forum, on the subject of conspiracy theories and not a court of law, it is safe to assume that the sceptical process is accepted by the users and members in this discussion. Which places the burden of proof in the hands of the person making the exceptional claim.

Great - I'd have thought there wouldn't be a lot of hair-splitting as we've seen from JayUtah about establishing and justifying a 'methodology' before a discussion could be had.

I'm not making any exceptional claim - someone accuses Lane of being a liar, when the claim was investigated it was shown to be without foundation.

On the matter of Oswald, he stands accused of murder. It is not exceptional to suggest that he could be innocent of the charge.

That the physical evidence collected by the investigations and presented by the Warren commission is invalid and points to anything other than the obvious and accepted conclusion of LHOs probable guilt as the only viable suspect, is the extraordinary claim.

I don't agree on the characterization of 'exceptional claim'. The Warren Commission, its methods and its findings, have been subject to controversy as soon as intelligent observers examined them.

If I wanted to echo JayUtah's mantra "accepted by whom?"

I presume you are one person who accepts it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But other people do not accept it including a majority of persons as shown in poll after poll.

As the Warren Report is only supported by a minority of people, why not shouldn't we conclude that accepting it is the exceptional claim?

Moreover this has been explained in the thread upstream.

If you wish to use a different model then please explain whom the prosecution is and why we should ignore the available evidence until a trial is stood?

No, I am perfectly happy to discuss it. I am not the one calling for people's credentials before they can make a judgement about anything related to this.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hahaha!

I am the rational person, yet I'm not convinced by this vague claim of yours.

Should we respect a declaration soon that you are a vulcanised product favoured in tyres, while other posters are contact adhesive?

 

[JayUtah]

Great - I'd have thought there wouldn't be a lot of hair-splitting as we've seen from JayUtah...

Evidence of this, please?

I'm not making any exceptional claim - someone accuses Lane of being a liar, when the claim was investigated it was shown to be without foundation.

According to whom?

If I wanted to echo JayUtah's mantra "accepted by whom?"

It's no mere mantra. You seem to be saying certain claims have been decided and thus implying that certain questions are no longer pertinent for discussion. I simply want to know how this alleged conclusion came about.

But other people do not accept it including a majority of persons as shown in poll after poll.

The subject of opinion polls has been discussed several times in these threads. Have you read the threads?

As the Warren Report is only supported by a minority of people, why not shouldn't we conclude that accepting it is the exceptional claim?

That question is answered in the discussion in these threads previously. Have you read them?

I [/I]am not the one calling for people's credentials before they can make a judgement about anything related to this.

Certain judgments are probative only if they can be shown to derive from suitable experience. If you make such a judgment, it is pertinent to ask you to lay a foundation for it. If you cannot or will not, your opinion will be noted but doesn't have any value as proof.

 

[proudfootz]

It would. What stops you?

I have presented my argument already showing the claim that Mark Lane is a liar is specious.

Citations and evidence please?

Evidence that what is plagiarised is inaccurate?

It's not hard to find.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/gerald-posner-plagiarism/

As to the accuracy question goes, it could well be that only the stuff he steals from others is accurate.

However, that he is dishonest doesn't bode well and rather blunts one's enthusiasm for lending him much credibility. ymmv

Reason this negates the oft asked question if you have read the book or not?

Reason this prevents you reading past Posners own opinions to the primary sources he cites?

I have read the book, and critiques of it.

No doubt someone could make a career out of it!

 

[JayUtah]

I have presented my argument already showing the claim that Mark Lane is a liar is specious.

You presented an argument, but by whose judgment was it determined to have prevailed?

Further, you have ignored completely additional evidence from HSeizant showing Lane clearly misrepresented other testimony.

 

[proudfootz]

So is that why the historians met their common conclusion? Because of a popularity contest? Is that what you think Jay was suggesting?

I have no idea why this supposed group of un-named historians reached a conclusion, what this conclusion was, or on what basis -if any - they reached this alleged consensus.

AFAICT Jay is merely throwing up a lot of dust to make such a vague and useless claim. As a rhetorical device, it has merit. Join the bandwagon! Whee!

Please quote the post where Jay names the Ripperologists (if any) that he admires.

He doesn't name any. No more than he names any historians who agree with his opinion, either.

It's all so vague as to be utterly meaningless.

Because I am familiar with the literature. And I happen to know that of the Ripperologists who apply academic standards are generally held in high regard, those in short I would expect Jay to turn to for a concise expert opinion the list of viable suspects ranges to less than ten names. I would be surprised if more than five names are on the list and I would expect a much shorter list of those to be considered likely suspects.

Nonetheless, the identity is not known, which was the only reason I brought it up. Sometimes crimes are unsolved, and that is only natural since as mere mortals we have limitations.

That you would consider "the literature" to include every suspect driven book published and every suspect would lead me to suggest that your familiarity with the literature had mistaken volume for quality... Pop reading rather than scholary Ripperology.

No, I am not a professional Ripperologist with a degree in Ripperology.

 

[JayUtah]

We must be seeing the start of the elaborate framing that apparently has to take place before any actual claims appear. As I've noted before, a common part of any JFK conspiracy theory presentation is the need to shift the burden of proof onto the conspiracist's critics to defend the Warren Commission.

 

[manifesto]

Perhaps I should take a picture of my bookshelf and use that in place of supporting my arguments. Sauce for the geese...

Make sure to pick the biggest and most imprrresssive books, methinks.

Instead I have quoted testimony and showed the claim about Lane to be false.

Well, facts are pretty much irrelevant in the line of duty.

 

[BStrong]

Hypocrisy much?

You are extremely thin-skinned about language I use which is a mirror of the language used against me.

While tone trolling is a useful trade on the internet, it does nothing to establish Oswald's guilt of Kennedy's murder.

In fact, there is (at least) one very good reason to exculpate Oswald:

Paraffin casts indicate Oswald did not fire a rifle.

Not so much:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

Great - I'd have thought there wouldn't be a lot of hair-splitting as we've seen from JayUtah about establishing and justifying a 'methodology' before a discussion could be had.

I'm not making any exceptional claim - someone accuses Lane of being a liar, when the claim was investigated it was shown to be without foundation.

Your claims about Oswald are exceptional.
Your claim that Lane is honest is exceptional.

It is exceptional as he has been shown to misrepresent statements in his work.
Markham said that she identified Oswald, so Lanes selective use of her testimony is untruthful. Any claim otherwise is the extraordinary claim. Further examples (claiming a witness saw Police riding up the slope towards the Grassy Knoll when the testimony makes it clear they approached the TSBD, claiming there was confusion when the location was named and stated) have been listed.

YOU choose to ignore these, but they are there. Thus your claims are extraordinary BECAUSE THEY COUNTER THE EVIDENCE.

If you believe otherwise I suggest you try to understand the nature of an extraordinary claim before you continue.

On the matter of Oswald, he stands accused of murder. It is not exceptional to suggest that he could be innocent of the charge.

The weight of evidence points towards Oswald. You are making a claim against the evidence, ergo it is exceptional to suggest he is anything other than the only viable and most likely suspect.

Ergo: Your claim is absolutely the exceptional one. You require a GREATER weight of evidence to prove his innocence.

I don't agree on the characterization of 'exceptional claim'.

But you are not here to convince yourself. Nobody else gives the slightest whiff of a hint of care if you agree or not. We are not about to bend to your characterization to make it easier for you to "win" the conversation.

You can make any claim you like, but if you want anybody to be convinced, or to even bother reading your posts you will find them more willing to engage if you understand the sceptical process.

The Warren Commission, its methods and its findings, have been subject to controversy as soon as intelligent observers examined them.

Controversy is not a measure of inaccuracy. Not all intelligent observers found it in the least controversial. Many of those who found controversy were not intelligent observers.

If I wanted to echo JayUtah's mantra "accepted by whom?"

Most academics in the field of history. Those who are best placed to study a historical event. As was clear by the context of the statement.

I presume you are one person who accepts it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay allow me to correct you: You are wrong to assume, and more wrong to comment on those assumptions. Perhaps you should ask next time.

But other people do not accept it including a majority of persons as shown in poll after poll.

So is fact established by popularity contests now? How many of those people studied the subject or evidence? How many are making informed opinions?

As the Warren Report is only supported by a minority of people, why not shouldn't we conclude that accepting it is the exceptional claim?

No. Because that would be a claim against the evidence. Popular opinion of evidence is not a factor.

No, I am perfectly happy to discuss it. I am not the one calling for people's credentials before they can make a judgement about anything related to this.

Then please explain whom it was you meant by the prosecution as was asked.