Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

Then now is your opportunity to spell out, in detail, your very own Conspiracy Theory. Remember that your alternative competing hypothesis must account for the preponderance (or consilience, I love that word) of the evidence wiith no anomolies, according to your own guidelines.

"Preponderance" conveys quantity. In the legal taxonomy of proof, it's third down on the list among similar concepts of quantitative proof.

"Consilience" denotes types. We consider that evidence is consilient if it comes from a wide variety of sources and manifests itself as different kinds of observation. Eyewitness testimony combined with forensic examination combined with telemetry provides a consilience of evidence in, say, a transportation accident. When these different kinds of evidence point toward a single conclusion, it has a synergistic effect on its credibility.

Both are required from an hypothesis that hopes to unseat the prevailing one. Which is to say, it must provide a relatively more preponderant body of explanation than the convention, and it must be relatively more consilient.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It doesn't baffle you in the slightest. You know full well that if you were to present your own "theory", it would fail spectacularily under any stingent standard of evidence, and you're more than happy to ask us to prove an already-proven case. Even if you disagree with the official narrative, as many call it, you still must agree that it is the most commonly-accepted one, and thus the burden falls onto you to provide a better alternative.

And ultimately, Robert's alternate hypothesis is: No, something else happened.

 

[JayUtah]

And ultimately, Robert's alternate hypothesis is: No, something else happened.

Yes, it's the ultimate expression of "Anything but the conventional story" that categorizes so many useless conspiracy theories.

 

[Robert Harris]

It doesn't baffle you in the slightest. You know full well that if you were to present your own "theory", it would fail spectacularily under any stingent standard of evidence,

LOL!! Gotta love how you guys have already refuted what I never said and what you have no idea that I am going to say.

Are you so incapable of refuting the proof I presented, that Oswald could not have fired all the shots, that you are desperately hoping that you can refute something I else that I say in the future?

and you're more than happy to ask us to prove an already-proven case.

With all due respect sir, that is either a lie or an outrageous error.

You have NEVER proven that Oswald acted alone, which is why you are so upset that I would challenge you to do so.

And not only are you incapable of proving the Oswald did act alone, you are incapable of proving that he COULD have acted alone.

Even if you disagree with the official narrative, as many call it, you still must agree that it is the most commonly-accepted one

That is flatly untrue, as numerous polls have proven.

But the fact that you hold a minority opinion is irrelevant. What is infinitely more important is that the facts and evidence prove beyond all doubt that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Keep trying, someone might fall for it.

 

[Robert Harris]

And ultimately, Robert's alternate hypothesis is: No, something else happened.

I try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will not call you a liar. Perhaps you just forgot that earlier today, I stated that I would post about that within 1-2 days.

But now that you have been corrected, I will have to assume that if you repeat that false statement within less than 2 days, you are deliberately lying.

 

[Robert Harris]

Keep trying, someone might fall for it.

Might fall for what?

Please be specific.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Preponderance" conveys quantity. In the legal taxonomy of proof, it's third down on the list among similar concepts of quantitative proof.

"Consilience" denotes types. We consider that evidence is consilient if it comes from a wide variety of sources and manifests itself as different kinds of observation. Eyewitness testimony combined with forensic examination combined with telemetry provides a consilience of evidence in, say, a transportation accident. When these different kinds of evidence point toward a single conclusion, it has a synergistic effect on its credibility.

Excellent point!

The fact that you you have NONE of those evidence types to support the notion that Oswald acted alone, is certainly compelling, though by itself, not conclusive.

What is conclusive, is the evidence which proves that Oswald did not fire all the shots - something you don't seem too interested in debating.

 

[JayUtah]

The fact that you you have NONE of those evidence types to support...

Do not shift the burden of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will not call you a liar. Perhaps you just forgot that earlier today, I stated that I would post about that within 1-2 days.

But now that you have been corrected, I will have to assume that if you repeat that false statement within less than 2 days, you are deliberately lying.

I will have to assume that your repeated references to your interlocutors as "liars" is your bumbling attempt to distract from your cowardly running away from presenting your own alternative hypothesis. Just like every other CTist.

Keep trying, someone may fall for it.

 

[JayUtah]

Might fall for what?

Please be specific.

I was fairly specific in my first post to you, wherein I warned you of the specific methods of argumentation typically employed by conspiracy theorists and explained why they resulted in an unconvincing approach. Despite your indignance, you went on to employ most if not all of them, and continue to do so.

First and foremost you have the burden to prove you are worth being taken seriously. Since your arguments differ not one whit from your predecessors, nor your rhetoric, you don't seem to be making much headway there.

Specifically you might get a reader to fall for the proposition that you have a serious claim and are interested in testing it seriously against the evidence. You whine that your evidence is not being addressed. But in fact it is, just not in the way you had planned. You still expect the rebuttal of your claims to be someone stepping up to affirmatively promote the conventional theory. You can't seem to appreciate that your claims are being tested to see whether they provide more explanatory power. Someone might fall for your complaints of arbitrary rules and other excuses for why you can't convince anyone and come away thinking you have something. Not me, though.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It is relevant to the question of burden of proof. Read the entire context of what I said then; I did not say there was a conspiracy because most people think there was a conspiracy. I didn't even say that the burden of proof was only yours.

I've read it several times. Your attempt to tilt the playing field is evident.

I said we share the burden of proof in spite of the fact that the LN theory is a minority opinion, in contradiction to the govt's last investigation.

There is no "sharing" of separate burdens. Nor are they separate in the first place insofar as yours is a claim against the conventional wisdom, your attempt to suggest otherwise notwithstanding.

Of course. That's why I never said or implied that popularity is a measure of truth.

Then drop the attempts to characterize the single-gunman/non-conspiracy conclusion as inferior based on some nebulous measure.

Ahh... we both know I am a liar, eh?

Your word, not mine. I say you used hyperbole, exaggeration.

No sir, I stand by that statement.

Fine. Here's your quote again:

Forget that most people, most researchers, and the head of the HSCA believe this was a conspiracy. Forget that you represent a very small minority.

So. Please provide a comprehensive list of these researchers you allude to. Please indicate their current beliefs re: the events of the assassination. From there we can make a determination with regard to general grouping of majority/minority viewpoints.

But if you actually read the full context of what I said, you will realize that I said none of that matters. What matters are the facts and evidence - nothing more and nothing less..

I have read "the full context," which does not in the least bit change the Möbius strip you've created: if "none of it matters," why bring it up, unless you're hoping to somehow put those you're disagreeing with on the intellectual defensive.

I said that over and over again. Why are you citing me out of context?

The context is pretty clear. Perhaps there's a different line of reasoning you could put forth that doesn't contain rhetorical prestidigitation.

Are you actually saying that it doesn't matter if I disprove the "lone nut" theory??

Not without something to put in its place that better accounts for the known information.

 

[Robert Harris]

No. We will not lower the standards to suit your evidence.

Good idea, but an even better idea is to raise your standards to a level of honesty and objectivity.

Just because a handful of nutters get together and decide to arbitrarily make their theory the standard, doesn't make it so.

This is a debate proposition,

Resolved: that a lone assassin killed JFK

or

Resolved: JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.

By your own admission, your theory has never been proven. So, why does it get a higher status than any other?

You have no rational reason for that. You just do it because you are in a majority around here and think you can. And you are using this as an excuse for why you cannot defend your position.

This is reminiscent of evangelical forums in which it is claimed that belief in a god is presumed to be true, in spite of the total absence of evidence.

There is no "our" case.

BS! That is exactly what it is.

You buy into the lone nut theory, with no regard at all for the facts and empirical evidence which prove you wrong.

There is the conventional narrative and the evidence supporting it.

Please don't use weasel words. By "conventional narrative", you mean the lone nut theory.

And there IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT.

Why do you pretend that there is?

You are well aware of that narrative and presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional conclusions are drawn.

What body of evidence?

Tell me about it.

These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.

Your theory never has been seated to begin with. This is just a very shabby tactic in which a bunch of nutters got together and arbitrarily tried to make rules that relieve them of the burden of having to defend their favorite 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.

OMFG!! How outrageous of these people, asking you to defend your own theory! Some folks just have no manners at all!

You are the one with the affirmative claim.

Yes, and I have posted all kinds of evidence to support it. When can I expect your rebuttal?

 

[Border Reiver]

Mr. Harris, I once again note that you have not produced any sort of evidence, or even a hypothesis, as to what LHO did that required him to have an accomplice.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, and I have posted all kinds of evidence to support it. When can I expect your rebuttal?

To support what? What is your coherent alternative hypothesis which accounts for a consilience of evidence which you're wanting rebutted?

Do you notice how you will continue to not be allowed to switch the burden of proof?

 

[JayUtah]

Good idea, but an even better idea is to raise your standards to a level of honesty and objectivity.

Repeatedly calling your critics liars is not helping you. Nor have you addressed the evidence of your own double standard. You cannot understand why people are pointing at singular failures in your own theory while you simultaneously assure us that single data points have the power to overturn theories entirely.

By your own admission, your theory has never been proven.

Link to where I admitted this.

You have no rational reason for that.

On the contrary, I explained my reasons. You have steadfastly ignored nearly all of what I have posted, so denial is not your friend here.

This is reminiscent of evangelical forums in which it is claimed that belief in a god is presumed to be true, in spite of the total absence of evidence.

No, you are confusing the notion of faith with the notion of a null hypothesis.

BS! That is exactly what it is.

No, the burden of proof does not change simply because you fervently wish it.

You buy into the lone nut theory, with no regard at all for the facts and empirical evidence which prove you wrong.

If you would read the thread, which it's clear you have no intention of doing, you would learn just to what extent I have regarded, analyzed, discussed, and debated at length the evidence which various proponents claim proves me wrong. Repeatedly characterizing your critics as entrenched ignoramuses isn't helping you.

Your error is exactly as I have specified. You apply a double standard, which leads you to a warped understanding of just how credible your proposals are.

And there IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT.

Why do you pretend that there is?

I don't have to pretend. You are frantically trying to explain that evidence away. That is a presumption on your part both that it exists and that you know what it is.

What body of evidence?

Tell me about it.

Do not shift the burden of proof. You are attempting to explain away that body of evidence by using outlying points of it to suggest other ways to explain it. As I said, that presupposes both that you know the evidence exists and that you know what it is. Do not continue to demand that which is neither necessary nor forthcoming.

OMFG!! How outrageous of these people, asking you to defend your own theory!

You miss the point entirely. You demand a defense of some competing theory as the only rebuttal to your claims you will listen to. You demand only an affirmative rebuttal. This is a well-worn technique, and it's one of the reasons you aren't taken seriously in the study of history.

Honestly your foaming, frantic attempts to shift the burden of proof are at this point purely comical.

Yes, and I have posted all kinds of evidence to support it. When can I expect your rebuttal?

I have posted my rebuttal twice and referred to it subsequently. As I said, you seem to be deaf except to a rebuttal of a particular form that you expected. You are completely unable to deal with the rebuttal that was actually presented.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've read it several times. Your attempt to tilt the playing field is evident.

"Tilt"? You mean level it don't you?

You need to support your theory; I support mine.

To save my life, I can't see why you would be so fanatically opposed to that.

There is no "sharing" of separate burdens.

Wow! Was that on a clay tablet that fell on your head as God's booming voice gave you instructions?

Or is it something a bunch of nutters cooked up, to avoid having to face the fact that they have no evidence so support their theory?

Nor are they separate in the first place insofar as yours is a claim against the conventional wisdom,

Please define "conventional wisdom". Who exactly, gets to make that call? It certainly isn't related to the facts and empirical evidence, that's for sure.

your attempt to suggest otherwise notwithstanding.

My "attempt to suggest otherwise", is an exercise in sanity and honesty. You're trying to use this pathetic tactic as a way to evade your obligation to defend your position.

Then drop the attempts to characterize the single-gunman/non-conspiracy conclusion as inferior based on some nebulous measure.

Your theory is "inferior" because it has been proven untrue.

Your word, not mine. I say you used hyperbole, exaggeration.

Prove it. Refute my arguments and supporting evidence.

Fine. Here's your quote again: So. Please provide a comprehensive list of these researchers you allude to. Please indicate their current beliefs re: the events of the assassination. From there we can make a determination with regard to general grouping of majority/minority viewpoints.

What a stupid request. We both agree that the opinions of others don't matter, and you made that challenge, knowing that I was not about to spend the next year tracking down a couple thousand authors of JFK books

Let's cut the crap and talk about what does matter - the facts and evidence.

Are you up for that?

Or would you prefer to continue on, ranting about why you don't have to defend your favorite theory?

 

[Robert Harris]

I said, "By your own admission, your theory has never been proven."

You said,
Link to where I admitted this.

I sincerely apologize. I guess I got you mixed up with several others.

More importantly, please share with everyone, your proof that Oswald acted alone.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JayUtah]

You need to support your theory; I support mine.

No, that's not how burden-of-proof works. By definition.

To save my life, I can't see why you would be so fanatically opposed to that.

Because every JFK conspiracy theorists tries to shift the burden of proof just as you are doing, for exactly the reason that conspiricists generally do not want their theories evaluated according to the same standard they impose upon the conventional story.

Your theory is "inferior" because it has been proven untrue.

By whom? As decided by whom? To what standard of proof?

Prove it. Refute my arguments and supporting evidence.

Asked and answered. The insubstantial premises upon which your claims are based have been identified. You show no interest in substantiating them. The standard of proof you proposed for the conventional story has been applied to your claims and your hypothesis is shown to fail by that standard. It does you no good to whine that your arguments don't seem to be convincing when people are telling you in specific terms what about them fails to convince.

Or would you prefer to continue on, ranting about why you don't have to defend your favorite theory?

Your evidence thus far has been dealt with. You ignore it because it's not the form of response that feeds into the next waypoint on your roadmap. Your attempts to force your critics into an affirmative role began with your first post and continues up until now, hence that problem is mostly yours; you won't make a single post without complaining about how no one will accept the burden of proof to refute you affirmatively.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris, I once again note that you have not produced any sort of evidence, or even a hypothesis, as to what LHO did that required him to have an accomplice.

Didn't I already answer your question?

I don't think he "required" an accomplice, just like a zillion other crimes and terrorist acts which probably could have been pulled off with fewer people.

But 2 or 3 shooters have a better chance of making the kill than 1, wouldn't you agree?