Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Tomtomkent]

According to whom?

It looks like an assertion.

Well, for a start: According to those you are discussing the matter with here. Presumably you intend to convince us your view is valid, ergo you are being told how to convince us.

That the Warren Commission points towards the most likely suspect has been explained before. That it is the consensus among historians also. Therefore, it is the null.

This is not up for argument, if you want to accept the view or not, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to have a meaningful discussion accept it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just trying to make sure I've sufficiently whacked this mole so that LNs won't be returning to it yet again.

Do you mean "it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that Lane misrepresented the evidence of a witness who clearly stated she had identified Oswald and refused to be led to other conclusions?"

Because if so, I think all sceptics are thoroughly convinced and do not need a repeat performance.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You mean the shells from the witness Benavides that Officer Poe marked as evidence, or the ones that entered the record that didn't have his mark?

Tell you what. The posts are all still there in the thread. Why not scroll back a few pages and find out for yourself.

 

[proudfootz]

It's the assertion back up by the facts.

There is no evidence for any other shooters besides Oswald, there is no evidence to suggest that he worked with anyone else to kill Kennedy or Tippit, and there is no evidence that he was working for anyone else in the commission of the crimes which he has been accused. Therefore Oswald being the lone gun man that killed two people is the null hypothesis until someone can prove it wrong.

Sorry, proudfootz, but thems the breaks.

Thems the assertions.

Just piling more assertions on top of the original doesn't help you here.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm just waiting for him to actually present a case rather than having to hear incessant whining about how he's being misrepresented and demanding credibility he hasn't earned.

 

[proudfootz]

Nope.

As I said, every JFK conspiracy theory starts out with the proponent saying how much more about the subject he knows than everyone else.

Yes, you said that absurd thing.

However, when you attribte that claim to me you are venturing into misrepresentation and strawman territory.

Is that the only way you know how to defend your fringe beliefs?

Tell you what. Read what I've written in the 200-plus pages of this thread and its predecessor threads. Then we'll talk.

I'll probably get around to reading some of the earlier threads, just to see whether your claims about 'no Warren Commission skeptics are interested in who might have killed Kennedy' holds any more water than your other recent claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thems the assertions.

Just piling more assertions on top of the original doesn't help you here.

No. They are facts based on tangible evidence. That evidence makes the narrative of Oswald having fired all three shots on that day the null hypothesis. Stop trying to shoot for a fringe reset. It has been stated many times over that the accepted facts of the day, in terms of those in this discussion whom you seem to be trying to convince otherwise, are that Oswald did the shooting.

You can either overcome the null with a better theory, or you can try to argue a fringe reset and pretend no valid evidence has been gathered to determine facts. The former is more likely to get a reasonable discussion from the later.

 

[LSSBB]

Just trying to make sure I've sufficiently whacked this mole so that LNs won't be returning to it yet again.

If by LNs you mean an imaginary caricature of your opponents, I'm afraid I can't speak to your imagination. On the issue of Lane and Markham, from my POV it looks like you were more the recipient of the whacking. Ditto on the larger question of Lane's honesty, or apparent lack thereof, thanks to Hank's unacknowledged (by you) torpedoing of Lane.

 

[RoboTimbo]

According to whom?

It looks like an assertion.

It is an assertion backed by fact. You have the burden of proof, despite your foot stamping. Like it or not.

Who is your best suspect for who fired Oswald's assassination rifle that Oswald bought through mail order from Oswald's sniper nest, killing Kennedy?

Who is your best suspect for who murdered officer Tippit using the revolver Oswald still had in his possession when he was arrested and tried to kill more officers?

 

[proudfootz]

Well, for a start: According to those you are discussing the matter with here. Presumably you intend to convince us your view is valid, ergo you are being told how to convince us.

That the Warren Commission points towards the most likely suspect has been explained before. That it is the consensus among historians also. Therefore, it is the null.

This is not up for argument, if you want to accept the view or not, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to have a meaningful discussion accept it.

That having a 'meaningful' discussion requires I accept your position as a given is a rather ingenious twist on the term 'meaningful'.

As I am also a participant in this discussion, you should likewise take on board what it would require to convince us - that is part of what a discussion means - and not merely assert that your view is valid and that is that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Just trying to make sure I've sufficiently whacked this mole so that LNs won't be returning to it yet again.

Does ignoring the entirety of HSeinzant's post skewering Liar Lane help?

 

[JayUtah]

So tell us why you shouldn't have any burden of proof.

 

[Dcdrac]

That having a 'meaningful' discussion requires I accept your position as a given is a rather ingenious twist on the term 'meaningful'.

As I am also a participant in this discussion, you should likewise take on board what it would require to convince us - that is part of what a discussion means - and not merely assert that your view is valid and that is that.

your evidence for your assertions please

 

[RoboTimbo]

That having a 'meaningful' discussion requires I accept your position as a given is a rather ingenious twist on the term 'meaningful'.

As I am also a participant in this discussion, you should likewise take on board what it would require to convince us - that is part of what a discussion means - and not merely assert that your view is valid and that is that.

The null hypothesis is that Oswald killed JFK, firing three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward for who did it that fits the evidence better?

 

[proudfootz]

Do you mean "it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that Lane misrepresented the evidence of a witness who clearly stated she had identified Oswald and refused to be led to other conclusions?"

Because if so, I think all sceptics are thoroughly convinced and do not need a repeat performance.

This is what I was referring to:

Mark Lane: "She [Markham] said he [the shooter] was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."

"Mrs. MARKHAM. He was short.
"Mr. LANE. He was short?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. And was he a little on the heavy side?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Not too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was--no--he didn't look too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. He wasn't too heavy and would you say that he had a rather bushy kind of hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

We can see that the relevant part of the tape recording of the conversation as transcribed matches in every detail Mark Lane's summary.

So, yes, sceptics of the claim that Lane 'lied' about the telephone conversation have been validated.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is what I was referring to:

Mark Lane: "She [Markham] said he [the shooter] was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy. I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."

"Mrs. MARKHAM. He was short.
"Mr. LANE. He was short?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
"Mr. LANE. And was he a little on the heavy side?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Not too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was--no--he didn't look too heavy.
"Mr. LANE. He wasn't too heavy and would you say that he had a rather bushy kind of hair?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; just a little bit bushy.
"Mr. LANE. It was a little bit bushy?
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.

We can see that the relevant part of the tape recording of the conversation as transcribed matches in every detail Mark Lane's summary.

So, yes, sceptics of the claim that Lane 'lied' about the telephone conversation have been validated.

Still defending Liar Lane despite the evidence of his dishonesty?

 

[proudfootz]

The null hypothesis is that Oswald killed JFK, firing three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward for who did it that fits the evidence better?

According to you, that may be our starting assumption.

Naturally, if we just assume you are correct it tends to skew the debate.

This is why 'null hypothesis' does not fit as a descriptor of your beliefs.

 

[proudfootz]

Tell you what. The posts are all still there in the thread. Why not scroll back a few pages and find out for yourself.

Sure, since you are apparently unwilling or unable to make the argument, I suppose I'll have to search for someone who does.

 

[JayUtah]

No, you're just cherry picking again from the only part of the transcript you've apparently seen. Paring away Markham's actual words until they seem to fit what Lane said is not what makes your excerpts "relevant."

 

[Tomtomkent]

That having a 'meaningful' discussion requires I accept your position as a given is a rather ingenious twist on the term 'meaningful'.

So it is everybody elses fault for accepting a point of view you do not happen to accept?

Sorry, but no.

As I am also a participant in this discussion, you should likewise take on board what it would require to convince us - that is part of what a discussion means - and not merely assert that your view is valid and that is that.

So what is it you think I am trying to convince you of?