The scammers keep trying to shift the burden of proof. I mentioned several other criteria shortly after your first post.
Mr. Utah, it is not a "scam" to argue for a level playing field. This forum is unique among ALL other JFK forums that I am aware of, in which the members have made arbitrary rules that require posters to assume that one particular theory is the standard and that the composers of these strange rules do not have to present evidence to support their position.
Which you then went on to commit. I even pointed out in detail when you were committing them while making your case.
But your accusations were false. Most of them were based on what you thought I was going to do rather than what I did. But let's take one of the recent ones. I asked you to support your accusation that I have been refuted, by citing a specific example. You replied,
"Your claim is an inference based on subjective judgment and begged questions."
As we both know, the science of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio was an objective analysis of specific streaks in the Zapruder film. Those streaks were carefully measured by Alvarez, who had studied this phenomena in Africa. He also charted the reactions and listed those charts in his paper to the Journal of American Physics.
Why would you label that a "subjective judgement"?
And I have proven to you, with empirical evidence, that those people ducked and spun around at extreme speed, in perfect unison with one another - beginning in exactly the same frame that Zapruder's reaction began.
That is not "subjective" Jay. That is as objective and empirical as things get.
I suppose you could say that the near unanimous recollections of the witnesses were subjective, but that doesn't make that evidence worthless. Witnesses are certainly, not infallible. But as the Warren Commission confirmed, most of them were very, very consistent. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that so many made exactly the same error?
You attempted to blow all this off, with sweeping generalizations but your generalizations were simply untrue.
It's not anyone's fault but yours that your approach is indistinguishable from every other conspiracy theorist's and therefore predictable.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I present evidence and form conclusions based on that evidence. If other conspiracy advocates do the same, then I plead guilty. But then, so is every good scientist and criminologist on the planet.
You conflate the uniqueness of your narrative with the common methods you use to compose, present, and defend it. Every single conspiracy theorist relies upon the rhetorical tactics I outlined at the start.
Mr. Utah. I presented my case in a very straightforward and unambiguous manner. I use terms of uncertainty quite frequently. And I will stand behind every statement I ever made. When I do express certainty, I do so after presenting very solid evidence to support that claim.
If I am able to predict how you will present your case, and tick off the items as they appear in your posts, that should give you pause. Instead you complain about being found out.
I never made such a complaint.
And without exception, you never reference specific, verbatim statements I have made. You spew out these insulting accusations and endlessly vague generalizations with no logical justification whatsoever.
I have never in my life, encountered someone who was so fanatically judgmental and so consistently wrong.
Over two decades, I have debated with countless lone nut advocates, from John McAdams who holds a Phd from Harvard, to Larry Sturdevant, to Michael Shermer and even Gerald Posner, with whom I have exchanged emails. And although we agreed on very little, none of them spewed out the kind of insults that you do.
It is a waste of time and bandwidth to continually engage in these personal attacks. You diminish your own credibility when you do that, as do I when I respond in kind.
I propose that we both change our tactics and stick to the facts and evidence. That's all that really matters and I'm pretty sure that's all our readers want to hear from us.
