Then we need to fix the "way it works".
No. We will not lower the standards to suit your evidence. It is a demand commonly made by proponents of conspiracy theories, but it falls on unsympathetic ears here. You are making an extraordinary claim, and therefore you will agree to rise to an extraordinary standard of proof.
I will present my case and you may present yours, if you wish.
There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.
As I said, baiting critics into accepting an affirmative burden of proof for the conventional narrative is one of the oldest and lamest tactics JFK conspiracists use. You are the one with the affirmative claim. Trying to force your critics to affirm a counterclaim by way of preface or rebuttal is a rather easily seen-through shell game.
If you refuse to do that, then you are only confirming that you have no evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone.
Nonsense. If we refuse to accept a burden to refute your speculation, we are doing the proper thing. The very first thing you did when you showed up was ask what everyone else believed. Then after announcing that you had an alternate theory, you demanded that everyone else first
prove their beliefs to the exclusion of your then-unstated claims. How can that possibly be anything other than shifting the burden of proof?
What baffles me though, is why you guys are so much more concerned about your artificial rules than you are about getting to the truth of this thing.
The artificiality of the rules has been addressed. Since you ignored that, I assume you have no answer. In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative, so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to bounce off of.
You said you had a strong alternative theory, but so far you've presented only vague maybe-thises and maybe-thats. In fact you have no testable alternative, and I daresay you have no interest in producing one.
As I said, we're only applying to your claims the same standard of evidence you apply to the conventional narrative. The rules are "artificial" only insofar as you invent them in order to discredit the conventional conclusion. If you can't stand the heat, leave the kitchen. As to arbitrary rules, you're the one demanding an affirmative case for the conventional narrative. You're the one demanding that we prove affirmatively not only that your nebulous theory didn't happen, but effectively that any such thing
couldn't happen. When you insist that only affirmative rebuttals will be listened to, you're the one making arbitrary rules.
Let's talk about when the shots were fired and whether it was possible for Oswald to have fired all of them.
Asked and answered. Your conclusion along those lines is an inference drawn upon a number of begged questions and improper generalizations. When you put an argument behind the begged questions and a rationale behind the generalizations, then you can start to argue the inference. Until then, the identification of the insubstantial premises under your argument is a sufficient rebuttal.
Sorry but you don't get to demand only a certain kind of rebuttal. Deal with the rebuttal that was presented, not the one your wish had been made.
If it was not, then the conspiracy debate is over.
Again no. That's the Bellwether Fallacy, wherein one data point is presumed or argued to overrule the consilience of all other data. It's the cornerstone of all conspiracy theories and the principal reason no conspiracy author is taken seriously by historians. You ignored my previous explanation of your dilemma there, so I presume that's another point you can't answer.
You are so far just the latest in a long series of conspiracy theorists who argue the same tired points according to the same tired shell-game rhetoric. You're trying to set the bar so very low for yourself and foist off all intellectual responsibility on others to rebut your insubstantial claims.
