Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert, I'll tell you why I think Oswald acted alone.

-It was his rifle found in the sniper's nest; we have the record of him purchasing it, we also have the backyard photos that his wife Marina testified to taking of him showing off that weapon.

-We have the testimony of Marina that Lee told her about his attempt to assassinate General Edwin Walker - with that same weapon - on April 10, 1963. While not directly related to the assassination of JFK, it indicates Oswald was mentally capable of attempting to kill a high profile person.

-We have Wes Frazier's testimony about the large package Oswald brought to work with him the morning of the assassination. It should be also noted that Oswald normally stayed at his boarding house during the work week, and only returned home on the weekends. This was the first time Frazier had brought him home on a weeknight and brought him to work on the following work day - the day of the assassination.

-Oswald left the TSBD as soon as he could after the assassination, before LEO's could lock the place down; all of his co-workers remained in the building.

-Co-workers testified that Oswald had been working on the 6th floor most or all of that morning.

-We have Oswald shooting DPD Officer J.D. Tippet approximately 45 minutes after the assassination. Not long after that Oswald snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying. When DPD officers confronted him he attempted to pull the weapon he had shot Tippet with on those officers.

-Oswald was an experienced marksman, both from the hunting he did with his brother in his youth and the formal training he received in the USMC.

-We also have Oswald's unusual history before the assassination, including a troubled childhood and adolescence, his remarks to fellow Marines that he was a Marxist, his defection to the Soviet Union - and when that didn't work out the way he thought it would, his return to the USA with his Russian bride.

-We have the forensic evidence that CE 399 and the bullets that killed Tippet matched Oswald's weapons to the exclusion of any other weapons. The fragments of the head shot as well as the shot he took at Walker were too damaged to definitively match to that weapon, but were consistent with a 6.5mm Carcano and the ammo available at the time.

-We have no credible evidence of another shooter. None.


In my mind, the only slightly conceivable case that could be made, with the objective and empirical evidence we have, is that someone put Oswald up to it. But we have no credible evidence of that either. And, as I pointed out to you earlier, proving a negative (in this case, proving that no one suggested or recommended Oswald attempt the killing) is an impossible task.

I'm not sure why I've bothered to write this post, as you'll most likely discount my conclusions out of hand, but at at least you'll no longer be able to say I haven't laid out my case for Oswald acting alone.
 
Last edited:
The reactions in real time

The previous Zapruder segment I posted, was in slow motion. This one, depending on your computer's performance, should be pretty close to real time.

ducking3.gif
 
Robert, I'll tell you why I think Oswald acted alone.

-It was his rifle found in the sniper's nest; we have the record of him purchasing it, we also have the backyard photos that his wife Marina testified to taking of him showing off that weapon.

-We have the testimony of Marina that Lee told her about his attempt to assassinate General Edwin Walker - with that same weapon - on April 10, 1963. While not directly related to the assassination of JFK, it indicates Oswald was mentally capable of attempting to kill a high profile person.

-We have Wes Frazier's testimony about the large package Oswald brought to work with him the morning of the assassination. It should be also noted that Oswald normally stayed at his boarding house during the work week, and only returned home on the weekends. This was the first time Frazier had brought him home on a weeknight and brought him to work on the following work day - the day of the assassination.

-Oswald left the TSBD as soon as he could after the assassination, before LEO's could lock the place down; all of his co-workers remained in the building.

-Co-workers testified that Oswald had been working on the 6th floor most or all of that morning.

-We have Oswald shooting DPD Officer J.D. Tippet approximately 45 minutes after the assassination. Not long after that Oswald snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying. When DPD officers confronted him he attempted to pull the weapon he had shot Tippet with on those officers.

-Oswald was an experienced marksman, both from the hunting he did with his brother in his youth and the formal training he received in the USMC.

-We also have Oswald's unusual history before the assassination, including a troubled childhood and adolescence, his remarks to fellow Marines that he was a Marxist, his defection to the Soviet Union - and when that didn't work out the way he thought it would, his return to the USA with his Russian bride.

-We have the forensic evidence that CE 399 and the bullets that killed Tippet matched Oswald's weapons to the exclusion of any other weapons. The fragments of the head shot as well as the shot he took at Walker were too damaged to definitively match to that weapon, but were consistent with a 6.5mm Carcano and the ammo available at the time.

-We have no credible evidence of another shooter. None.


In my mind, the only slightly conceivable case that could be made, with the objective and empirical evidence we have, is that someone put Oswald up to it. But we have no credible evidence of that either. And, as I pointed out to you earlier, proving a negative (in this case, proving that no one suggested or recommended Oswald attempt the killing) is an impossible task.

I'm not sure why I've bothered to write this post, as you'll most likely discount my conclusions out of hand, but at at least you'll no longer be able to say I haven't laid out my case for Oswald acting alone.

Bazbear, I will be happy to debate with you about this, but I am asking everyone who wants to do that, to agree to these rules. Notice that there is nothing in them that gives me any advantages of any kind. They only provide a level playing field and allow me to participate without spending 15 hours per day at the keyboard.

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.
 
Minor update

Minor update. The change is in bold.

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.
 
Simple Question

In all honesty, gentlemen (haven't seen any ladies here yet)

If Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris were here, whose rules do you think they would prefer - yours or mine?
 
Much like the individual he's attempting to exonerate, he will not simply put himself out of our misery, he must make his mark on the world before he exits the stage.

Mr. Strong, just to be clear, I am quite certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty. It is easy to prove however, that he did not act alone.
 
Bazbear, I will be happy to debate with you about this, but I am asking everyone who wants to do that, to agree to these rules. Notice that there is nothing in them that gives me any advantages of any kind. They only provide a level playing field and allow me to participate without spending 15 hours per day at the keyboard.

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.
You're joking, right? I'm sorry, you don't get to set the rules. Debate the facts where they lay or don't. Your inferences and speculations based on a begged question (have you looked that up yet?) are not facts.
 
...I am asking everyone who wants to do that, to agree to these rules.

You mean you were actually serious about this list?

Notice that there is nothing in them that gives me any advantages of any kind.

You mean except for...

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

You make the rules.

Advantage: Harris.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

You get to have your say anytime you want, to be read by everyone. But everyone else has to wait his turn.

Advantage: Harris.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory.

You don't understand what ad hominem arguments are, and you have a history of declaring things derogatory just because you don't want to answer them. This gives you a mechanism to ignore anything you can't handle.

Advantage: Harris.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

Your adversaries aren't presuming they're right. You asked what they believed and they told you. You wrongly took that answer as an agreement to take up an affirmative position. You, in contrast, are making a specific unsolicited affirmation. You have the burden of proof. You're here simply asking for permission to beg the question.

Advantage: Harris.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

Burden of proof is asymmetrical by definition. The obligation of one party to overcome the null hypothesis is the essence of what we mean by burden of proof. You simply want to impose an obligation in order to stifle criticism and intimidate would-be critics.

Advantage: Harris.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

You can change the rules of the game at any time, but your critics cannot.

Advantage: Harris.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.

And since I cannot imagine anyone in his right mind agreeing to such patently one-sided nonsense, I figured you were throwing these out just to provide a pseudo-face-saving excuse for your already-promised exit. I can't imagine why you'd think anyone would take these seriously.

The only rules on this forum are the Membership Agreement we all agreed to when we signed up. You don't get to impose your personal restrictions on others' participation. But by all means, if you wish, keep playing this game. I guarantee it makes you seem afraid of public debate.
 
You're joking, right? I'm sorry, you don't get to set the rules. Debate the facts where they lay or don't. Your inferences and speculations based on a begged question (have you looked that up yet?) are not facts.

Hypothetically, if you had the courage to debate on a level playing field, how do you think you would do?
 
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. That much is indisputable.

I was going to warn you that Mr. Utah would be all over you for "begging the question", but for some unfathomable reason, he hasn't complained.

Gosh! I wonder why that is?
 
I've encountered you before I believe, have you changed your theory since the 1990's?

I changed my thinking in 1995, to be exact.

I should probably correct that. I believed and believe that he was probably guilty.

In fact, there are only a few things that I believe with absolute certainty.
 
Last edited:
In all honesty, gentlemen (haven't seen any ladies here yet)

If Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris were here, whose rules do you think they would prefer - yours or mine?
I don't believe you want a debate. As Mr. Utah has pointed out, you appear to simply want to draw this out as long as possible.

In any case, I thought you said you were leaving, adios and all that? Ineffectual flounce (as Mr. Utah put it) indeed.

You like to name check some high profile skeptics, so why don't step up to the plate and actually use some of skeptical and critical thinking skills those gentlemen use? Especially logical fallacies; you need to read about them, and take them to heart, if you want a productive discourse 'round these parts.

Once more: you don't get to set the rules.
 
I was going to warn you that Mr. Utah would be all over you for "begging the question", but for some unfathomable reason, he hasn't complained.

Gosh! I wonder why that is?

Yes, we know you don't comprehend what "begging the question" means. You don't need to continue to prove it. You've already met that burden of proof. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom