Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

You pretty much haven't responded to anything. You argue expecting your critics to play the role you've written out for them, and you get frustrated (and subsequently moderated) when they won't. You can't seem to deal with what your critics actually do and say.

Every sentence you just wrote, contains either "you" or "your". I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

Your arguments, however lengthily or repeatedly embellished, continue to boil down to assumptions, begged questions, and subjectivity.

Sorry, I only talk about the facts and evidence.

Those flaws will not continue to go away no matter how many words you pile around them.

My "flaws" are not the issue. The issue is the question of whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

 

[Belz...]

I find it amazing how emotional people get over this crime.

Please point to any emotional reaction to your posts, in this thread.

But the evidence I have found, suggests that the attack was carried out by several thugs rather than one.

No, it doesn't. That is _your_ interpretation, but aside from your own say-so, you have given no reason to anyone to agree with your conclusion. It's sad that you don't see that, but that's what it is. This is a common problem with laymen who try to analyse data that should be left to professionals -- professionals who, I would like to point out, disagree with you.

In fact, it demonstrates that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald used, could not possibly have accounted for all the shots.

And yet it has.

This forum was supposed to provide an opportunity to present facts and evidence which would be objectively and fairly judged, and I think several people have tried to do that. But some, and by far, the loudest have acted much more like blind advocates for the lone nut theory than anything approaching an objective evaluation.

What has actually happened is that, unlike your previous attempts at CT sites which are receptive to your kind of thinking, the people here require a much higher standard of evidence, one which you cannot provide. I submit that the emotional person here is you, feeling frustration that you're not getting the traction that you expected, here. Trust me, if you can get your act together and present your case in an objective fashion that does not rely on your personal biases, people will notice, and the conversation will get far more productive for all.

For them, no evidence will be convincing.

I would like to ask you a question, about this: given that you are no doubt aware of the body of evidence that exists supporting the theory that Oswald acted alone, and that most professionals agree with that theory, what would it instead take for you to be convinced of it ?

Bonus question: why do you believe that you are more qualified than the experts to analyse the data and draw conclusions from it ?

Marcello confessed to an undercover, FBI informant, that David Ferrie introduced him to Oswald at a meeting at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans and that he ordered the assassination of president Kennedy.

Aside from his confession, do you have any other evidence of this ? Also, I consider it quite possible that someone paid or otherwise incited Oswald to carry out the assassination. However, this still leaves Oswald as the only gunman. How does this mesh with your earlier statements ?

 

[JayUtah]

I already stated that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks.

Report allegedly ad hominem posts for moderation. Otherwise do not simply declare posts to be ad hominem as a convenient excuse for ignoring them.

I do evidence and I do facts.

No, you do subjectivity, assumption, and inference. Then you ignore anyone who points out that this is what your argument consists of. Insisting that your beliefs are fact does not make them so. Sorry, but you don't get to hold out for the kind of rebuttal you were hoping for.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.

The way you approach the presentation of your case is a suitable topic for this forum, especially when it fits a well-established pattern intended to avoid a meaningful test of that case.

 

[Robert Harris]

Totally never expected to see Robert post walls of text and stop responding to any of the outstanding questions. Big surprise there.

I respond to all questions related to the assassination. If I have overlooked anything, please tell me specifically, what it was.

 

[JayUtah]

My "flaws" are not the issue.

The flaws I pointed out were flaws in your argument.

The issue is the question of whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The issue is who killed Kennedy. As soon as you can provide as much evidence for someone else as there is for Oswald, then you can say you have addressed the issue.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I already stated that I will not respond to ad hominem attacks. I do evidence and I do facts.

You should look up ad hominem^WP. I've conveniently given you a link so that you may brush up on and understand its nuances.

Also, no, you don't do facts. You do inferences. This has been explained, shown and demonstrated for you numerous times. I don't think you've quite got it yet.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.

You also need to understand the difference between your posting being discussed and you being discussed. It is very common for CTists to take such ownership of their pet CT that they see any criticism of it as a criticism of themselves. They can't distinguish between the two. In my post that you replied to, I spoke of your manner of posting and non-responsiveness. If you feel those are personal attacks, by all means report it for moderation.

Might be time for you to take a breather and have a rethink.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I respond to all questions related to the assassination. If I have overlooked anything, please tell me specifically, what it was.

That your personal interpretations of events are subjective, not objective.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Mr. Utah, it is not a "scam" to argue for a level playing field.

Reality isn't a level playing field: there is evidence and the conclusion that it leads to. If your argument is not as convincing, no one will give you a break just for the hell of it.

How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?

The fact that you seem unaware of the things Jay is telling you, for starters.

 

[Hans]

How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?

In fact, I have read a great deal of it. I will read it all after I complete the simpler task of reading "War and Peace".

I've read both the later was too long but interesting the former interesting but too long - why too long? Because:

Those who posted in it didn't read it and repeated the same ideas over and over again and also by those who attempted to shift the burden of proof with out one success.

From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'

 

[Robert Harris]

Report allegedly ad hominem posts for moderation. Otherwise do not simply declare posts to be ad hominem as a convenient excuse for ignoring them.

I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

Attacks on me personally, are by any definition, ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in reporting you, because every time you sink to that level, you confirm that you are unable to refute my analysis, objectively and honestly.

Would you like to discuss the statements by John Connally, DA Henry Wade and officer Bobby Nolan, who confirmed that the actual bullet that wounded Connally could not have been the same one that Daryl Tomlinson found?

Don't you think it's significant that the FBI may given the Warren Commission falsified evidence?

I think that's a much more important subject than "Robert Harris", don't you?

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry but I no longer respond to ad hominem attacks.

Perhaps you should learn what those are, first.

I do evidence and I do facts.

Drawing your own conclusion from frames of a video is not a "fact". It's called an "interpretation".

That's why I turned to the best scientists and the empirical evidence which proves that the nature and simultaneity of the reactions

Nice story, but we still have only your interpretation.

Every sentence you just wrote, contains either "you" or "your".

Please stop playing the drama queen. We _can_ address each other, you know. And I think that criticism about your methods should be taken into consideration by you, as they pertain directly to the topic at hand.

 

[Belz...]

From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'

Well, yes. The principal function of CTs, for CTers, seems to be not the conclusion, but the excitement of musing about a world-wide sinister plot that only they can uncover. Bringing it to a full conclusion would defeat its purpose.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no interest in reporting you...

Then you are uninterested in an objective opinion of whether my comments to you really are ad hominem as you claim. The proper way to deal with alleged personal attacks is to report them for moderation, not to try to eke rhetorical mileage out of them.

I addressed your latest Gish gallop by pointing out that (once again) the conclusions you purport to draw from those observations are not "facts" as you claim, but are inferences you've drawn from them according to subjective judgment and assumptions. I repeat that however lengthy your presentation may be, the central flaws in your argument are simple, easily identified, and inescapable.

I do not apologize that you are not getting the kind of rebuttal you hoped for.

 

[Belz...]

Attacks on me personally, are by any definition, ad hominem attacks.

No, actually. That is not the definition of ad hominem. That's why several of us are telling you to check your definitions. You're doing the same thing with this term as with your interpretation of the videos and pictures: refusing to doubt your own knowledge and re-evaluate it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

Attacks on me personally, are by any definition, ad hominem attacks.

You didn't look up the definition, did you? Even when I gave you a link.

And you wonder why your investigative methods are suspect?

 

[Robert Harris]

I've read both the later was too long but interesting the former interesting but too long - why too long? Because:

Those who posted in it didn't read it and repeated the same ideas over and over again and also by those who attempted to shift the burden of proof with out one success.

From your postings style I suspect your interest here is not to convince but purely to yell at skeptics or as Jay called it (I paraphrase poorly) 'to avoid a conclusion by drawing out the discussion endlessly.'

I'm sorry you have to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks.

But I do thank you for confirming that you are unable to deal with the evidence I have posted in this forum. I am flattered.

 

[Robert Harris]

You didn't look up the definition, did you? Even when I gave you a link.

And you wonder why your investigative methods are suspect?

"Robert Harris" is not a suitable topic for discussion.

Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?

Why do you suppose he slowed the limo as he simultaneously spun around so fast that alterationists claimed his turns were humanly impossible?

Alvarez has a theory on that. Perhaps we could discuss that too.

 

[JayUtah]

"Robert Harris" is not a suitable topic for discussion.

Yet you discuss him in every post.

Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

How exactly, did you confirm that I didn't read the thread?

I never said I confirmed it; I surmised as much when, after it was suggested to you that you do so, you reacted negatively rather than reply that:

In fact, I have read a great deal of it. I will read it all after I complete the simpler task of reading "War and Peace".

A fair enough point insofar as there's quite a bit of repetition throughout. However, I've found quite a bit of that to be entertaining during the moments when the discussion wasn't informative.

Anyway, enough with the appetizer - I for one am ready for the main course where you provide the alternate to the conventional narrative, one that accounts for all known elements and evidence.

 

[Hans]

I'm sorry you have to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks.

But I do thank you for confirming that you are unable to deal with the evidence I have posted in this forum. I am flattered.

I'm a lurker here and don't comment on the technical issue. I do however note people acting in odd ways.

Like accusing everyone of attacking you. My message was not an attack but an observation of your actions which every following post has confirmed.

You are not here to discuss the JFK issue if you were you wouldn't have posted to me.

Also go read the thread - the entire thread.

Oh and since you seem determined to find personal attacks in every post here is one for you.

'Robert you'd make an excellent Dogberry' - now lets see how long you whine about that one, lol