Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

What is it specifically, that you find to be idiotic about the rules?

To start with, the fact that they exist at all. You don't get to impose rules upon others' participation in a public debate at a forum you don't run. The notion that you would even attempt to speaks volumes. I have spoken several times about the conspiracist playbook, one element of which is the attempt to forestall or evade a meaningful test of their claims by directing the structure and flow of the debate. I had not expected you to be such a shining example of it.

Then to continue, the several points I brought up when you first starting spamming your proposed rules to the thread. You couldn't answer me then, and you won't answer me now.

 

[Robert Harris]

Guess again. We're not afraid of you. We don't hate you. We're laughing at you.

Jay, but I do not engage in discussion with trashtalkers. I'm sorry that you are so obsessed with me, that I am almost the only subject you talk about anymore.

I am here to talk about the JFK case. If you are here to talk about "Robert Harris", I think my comments will be of greater interest to the honest people here, than yours.

I have reported you BTW.

 

[JayUtah]

My understanding is that the mafia had very few rules...

How did you acquire this understanding?

Do you have documentation to confirm that such rules existed?

Do you honestly think there's a book of organized crime by-laws?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Therefore, Oswald did not act alone and this crime was by definition, a conspiracy.

Ok, now what?

This is evidence that you want anything but a solution. What's the answer, Robert? Ok, now what?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, but I do not engage in discussion with trashtalkers.

A little late to be trying to seize the moral high ground, don't you think?

I am here to talk about the JFK case.

So will that be the last we hear of your silly rules of engagement?

I think my comments will be of greater interest to the honest people here, than yours.

Name whom you believe to be "the honest people here" and tell us how you determined that.

 

[JayUtah]

Robert, in your rush to play games, you seem to have forgotten to answer this question.

But I will ask you whether you are a qualified polygraph examiner. Please answer with only the word yes or no.

 

[Robert Harris]

Still with the persecution complex? Why do you hate everyone here who disagrees with you? Why do you detest and abhor those who point out your fallacies?

I hate no one. As I have said countless times, I am here to discuss the JFK assassination. 90% of the responding posts have been attacks on "Robert Harris".

Because you've made it about "Robert Harris". Did you want to change that?

I would be delighted. Shall we discuss the question of whether Oswald could have fired all the shots?

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert, in your rush to play games, you seem to have forgotten to answer this question.

Of course I am not a polygraph operator, and even if I was, it wouldn't matter, since I don't have access to the printout on Ruby's test.

That's why the article was based entirely on the HSCA polygraph experts panel, whom I cited throughout the article.

 

[JayUtah]

Shall we discuss the question of whether Oswald could have fired all the shots?

No, let's start with the most recent questions already on the table. First, what qualifications do you have in the conduct and interpretation of polygraph tests? Are you a qualified polygraph interpreter? If not, can you give us some reasons why your interpretation of the polygraph results you posted is the correct one? [ETA: crossed postings, answered below]

Second, you have responded to cmikes with your asserted belief in the operations of organized crime. You provided no foundation for that belief. You further shifted the burden back to him to prove his statement, and suggested a particular form of evidence that you would accept. I questioned whether that was an appropriate form to expect.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I hate no one. As I have said countless times, I am here to discuss the JFK assassination. 90% of the responding posts have been attacks on "Robert Harris".

No, 90% of your posts have been about other posters and ignoring questions put to you specifically about the JFK assassination. And you are the one making them about "Robert Harris". Even how you put your name in quotes and refer to yourself in the third person. Laughable.

I would be delighted. Shall we discuss the question of whether Oswald could have fired all the shots?

This is a lie. You skip over questions specifically about the assassination to focus on those which you think allow you to play the martyr.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, you skpped over this post about the JFK assassination. Please answer it.

Ah good, I have your attention. Let's discuss the JFK assassination, as you've claimed that you want to do. I hope you were being honest about that.

Please present your entire comprehensive and coherent alternative hypothesis for how JFK was assassinated. After you've given an overview of your own narrative, then you may start showing how each bit of evidence lines up with it.

 

[JayUtah]

That's why the article was based entirely on the HSCA polygraph experts panel, whom I cited throughout the article.

What would you say if others were to read the HSCA reports for themselves and reach an entirely different conclusion than you? Would they be justified in that opinion?

 

[Robert Harris]

To start with, the fact that they exist at all. You don't get to impose rules upon others' participation in a public debate at a forum you don't run.

Then why do you get to impose rules? The people who really do run the forum have never confirmed your rules, have they?

If so, please point me to the one that relieves you of the burden of supporting your own theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Then why do you get to impose rules? The people who really do run the forum have never confirmed your rules, have they?

If so, please point me to the one that relieves you of the burden of supporting your own theory.

Which theory would that be?

 

[Robert Harris]

What would you say if others were to read the HSCA reports for themselves and reach an entirely different conclusion than you? Would they be justified in that opinion?

I would say, let's debate the issue - calmly, rationally and civilly.

 

[Robert Harris]

Which theory would that be?

I believe that would be the "lone nut" theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I believe that would be the "lone nut" theory.

Which post of JayUtah's propounded that theory?


ETA: disregard. JayUtah is capable of speaking for himself.

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert, you skpped over this post about the JFK assassination. Please answer it.

I already did that - twice, if memory serves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

 

[JayUtah]

If so, please point me to the one that relieves you of the burden of supporting your own theory.

The forum rules govern conduct. They do not spell out the principles of debate and of the intellectual process. Those are to be found in the collected writings of many philosophers since Aristotle, who first formulated the intellectual process as we now employ it.

I already explain this to you last night, but you ignored it. I'll summarize again and direct your attention back to the lengthier treatment.

First, burden of proof is by definition asymmetrical. Specifying the asymmetry is its entire raison d'etre.

Second, you are well aware of what the conventional narrative is. For reasons already belabored in this thread, you don't need the narrative and its justification spelled out to you. By your own admission and by the testimony of several newcomers, you have spent considerable time in the field of the JFK assassination and thus can be expected already to know the prevailing theory.

Finally, you arrived here and forthwith asked everyone to state what they currently believed about JFK. You seem to have interpreted those solicited answers as agreements to accept a burden of proof for the statements you asked for. No such agreement was stated or implied. You have even gone so far as to claim your opponents affirm a paucity or dearth of evidence based on their unwillingness to accept the obligation you foist onto them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I already did that - twice, if memory serves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Please provide a link to the post where you spelled out your coherent comprehensive alternate hypothesis.