No. I'm saying that the alleged evidence for Oswalds guilt doesn't hold up for closer scrutiny.
On what evidence are You, Belz..., claiming Oswalds guilt?
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
On what evidence are You, Belz..., claiming Oswalds guilt?
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, that's what I said. You think that your scrutiny is more exact than those of thousands of relevant experts from around the world. How rational does this sound to you ?
Can you select a piece of evidence that is commonly used to support the claim that Oswald shot JFK and tell us why it doesn't hold up?
Ranb
Thousands of relevant experts? Name one.
I have so far put forward two cases of alleged evidence, the three spent shells and the "magic" bullet CE-399. Read the discussion and tell us what you think.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How does that support your belief that someone else shot JFK? You've been asked this before and have always run away from answering.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Dr. Martin Fackler, Director, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute of Research, San Francisco
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf
Shifting the burden of proof, noted.
And since you all but admitted that you're working backwards here, care to share your theory?
Belz...
Fiend God
Answer the question, manifesto.
Are you kidding? Thousands of relevant experts? What relevant experts from what part of the world have concluded what?
Be specific.
Belz...
Fiend God
Don't toy with me. You know full well that only a fringe group of ingnorants claim that Oswald was a "patsy" and so on. I'm asking you if you think believing that the laymen's opinion is more accurate than the experts' is rational.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Answer the questions, manifesto. Stop running away.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Pretty much with every keystroke:
And on and on.
I weigh expert against expert and my informed conclusion is that in case after case, the alleged evidence doesn't hold up.
I state that I do not know who killed JFK.
You state that Oswald did it.
Who has the burden of proof?
No. That is your strange interpretation. Don't blame me for your bad ... 'thinking'.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Since you won't state your conclusion I guess I just have to take your word for it.
Are you referring to a case other than the assassination of JFK by LHO?
The burden of proof is on you. The WC came to the conclusion that LHO committed the act. I have looked at the same evidence that's available to you and I agree with that conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence.
You want to use the completion backwards principle as an investigative technique have at it, but don't be surprised if you present your version of events to a professional and they reject your process and conclusion.
Any reason not to address the link I posted to Dr. Fackler's paper?
You asked for an expert and I provided same.
Belz...
Fiend God
There is no "against" expert, here. The people who spout these "theories" are not experts, Manifesto. They are cranks.
You, actually. The Oswald conclusion has been reached long ago using the available evidence and a LOT of expert testimony and analysis. Your evidence against this is "didn't mark the bullet", which is as weak as one can imagine.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
In case you missed it:
Dr. Martin Fackler, Director, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute of Research, San Francisco
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf
Shifting the burden of proof, noted.
And since you all but admitted that you're working backwards here, care to share your theory?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Evidence:
His gun(s).
Shots came from his place of employment.
He was in the building at the time.
Fled the scene.
Killed a DPD officer who stopped him, tried to kill a second one when they confronted him in the theater.
That list right there is enough to have got LHO the chair. But wait, there's more...
Oswald took off his wedding band the morning of the assassination and left it on his dresser.
He was run out of a parking garage late one night before the assassination. The garage overlooked the parade route. LHO had no car, and therefore no reason to be in a parking garage other than scouting locations to shoot from.
On the day of the assassination, LHO once he left his boarding house, was headed in the direction of the bus depot. Was he planning a trip somewhere? He'd taken the bus to Mexico at least once prior.
You have nothing concrete to counter any of this.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Which experts? What did you do to determine whether the dissenting experts you consulted really knew what they were talking about?
Most conspiracy theorists are able to cite one or more of the roughly 900 books written on the Kennedy assassination. In most cases, if they do present a theory, we can determine which books they read or which videos they saw by the argument they've copied from it. And they trust that those sources have informed them sufficiently to make an "informed" decision.
But why do you think few if any of those books rise above the level of pulp matter in bookstores? Why do you think none of them are discussed as serious alternatives in classes on history or criminal justice?
Hold up to what identifiable standard? According to whose judgment?
And the shell game continues. You have a theory, you just won't present it -- solely so that you can hope to avoid any burden of proof. You say the fatal shot came from in front. That means you claim a person other than Oswald did it. Your unwillingness to name or identify that person does not relieve you of the burden to prove an affirmative claim.
We have satisfied our burden of proof. The evidence pertaining to that burden of proof is the evidence you're frantically trying to explain away by contriving all sorts of absurd standards you think it has to meet. Your critics don't have a continuing burden of proof when the only rebuttals from you to the Oswald evidence are speculation.
- Status