Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[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.


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.

I'm sorry you have to resort to insults and trashtalk.

I will be happy to reply to your post once you edit it to comply with the forum rules.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

Perhaps you are having technical difficulties.

I just linked it for you.

 

[JayUtah]

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

That wasn't my question. I asked if someone who read your source material and came to a different conclusion regarding it, would such a person be justified in having done so. I said nothing about them having to debate you over it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I did not write 78 posts on that.

Is it really possible that you don't know why I posted the ones I did write?

I've read the above a couple times now (wanting to be sure) and I can't seem to locate the comprehensive alternative to the lone gunman narrative. Could you point it out?

 

[Pooneil]

I do not engage in discussion with trashtalkers.

You haven't engaged in a discussion at all.

I am here to talk about the JFK case.

Then let's talk. Were where the shooters who fired at JFK located?

 

[grmcdorman]

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

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.

This is the 'appeal to lurkers' gambit. It has never worked before, and is not working here.

Mr. Harris, your 'evidence' is not convincing, and your behaviour is nearly a textbook example of CT behaviour in every realm, from Apollo hoax believers to Electric Universe proponents. No one is 'hating' you; the readers are gawking (and laughing) at your train wreck.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

So, which of those philosophers granted you the right to make a rule that alleviates you from defending your personal theory?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm sorry you have to resort to insults and trashtalk.

As am I.

I will be happy to reply to your post once you edit it to comply with the forum rules.

If you feel my post is in breech of the MA, report it. Otherwise, answer the questions put to you.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps you are having technical difficulties.

I just linked it for you.

I'm confused. You are pointing to an external source which explains (and presumably supports) your claim. Yet when you demand that your critics affirmatively state and support their belief, you do not seem to accept the incorporation by reference of their external references. HSeizant even explicitly named what those would consist of.

Will you stipulate that, on the basis of your use of external references, the conventional narrative is similarly already incorporated by reference?

 

[JayUtah]

So, which of those philosophers granted you the right to make a rule that alleviates you from defending your personal theory?

Asked and answered in my post. Please address all the points I raised, not just the one you cherry-picked.

The highlighted portions constitute a complex-question fallacy. I do not claim overt authority from a philosopher. I do not claim I have made a rule. These are all statements you've thrust into my mouth.

Finally, you have not been asking for a defense of the prevailing theory. You have been asking for someone to lay out a case in chief for it. A defense of the conventional narrative, pursuant to a challenge to it, is underway. It consists of pointing out the flaws in the challenge. You do not get to demand that defending a theory against your attack must require restating the case in chief.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps you are having technical difficulties.

I just linked it for you.

No, that just went to some stupid YouTube video which I won't watch. I hope you were simply mistaken and not lying about providing a link to the post where you spelled out your complete comprehensive alternative hypothesis for the JFK assassination. Please provide it now.

 

[HSienzant]

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to make that accusation when you refuse to debate honestly?

That's both ad hominem (disingenuous) and begging the question (refuse to debate honestly).

Still going in the wrong direction. The goal is to eliminate logical fallacies, Robert.

 

[JayUtah]

That wasn't my question. I asked if someone who read your source material and came to a different conclusion regarding it, would such a person be justified in having done so. I said nothing about them having to debate you over it.

Bump for Robert.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bump for Robert.

No sir, that was not your question. Your question was,

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

Of course, the question of whether they were justified, would be dealt with in the debate.

 

[Robert Harris]

That's both ad hominem (disingenuous) and begging the question (refuse to debate honestly).

Still going in the wrong direction. The goal is to eliminate logical fallacies, Robert.

You refused to debate on a level playing field, but continued to post accusations that I was evasive, knowing that at that time, I would not respond.

Perhaps you have a better name for that kind of tactic.

And perhaps you would also explain why you would deny that the terms I suggested do not constitute an honest debate?

 

[JayUtah]

No sir, that was not your question. Your question was,

"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? "

Fair enough, but actually I asked two questions.

Of course, the question of whether they were justified, would be dealt with in the debate.

No, your answer to the first question doesn't limit my scope in asking the second. My scope in the second question doesn't involve debate. Would someone who reads the source material on which you say you based your article and, without knowing you or having read that article, arrives at a completely different interpretation of it than you, be justified in having reached his own opinion?

 

[JayUtah]

You refused to debate on a level playing field...

Complex question fallacy.

but continued to post accusations that I was evasive, knowing that at that time, I would not respond.

You were evasive. You stated quite plainly several times you would only allow debate on terms you dictated. Your lack of response on any footing is the further essence of the evasion you were rightly accused of.

Perhaps you have a better name for that kind of tactic.

His "tactic" is simply trying to discuss the topic with you. You're the one who interposed your foisted rules.

Your tactic here, in addressing that impasse, is the fallacy of circular reasoning. You suggest he should not accuse you of evasion when he suspected you would continue to evade.

And perhaps you would also explain why you would deny that the terms I suggested do not constitute an honest debate?

Asked and answered.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, that just went to some stupid YouTube video which I won't watch.

Really?

Do you also refuse to watch lectures by Dawkins, Sagon, Krauss, Tyson and numerous other brilliant minds? Do you also refuse to watch science based documentaries or the best in classical and jazz music?

And if you refused to watch my presentation, how did you determine that it was "stupid"?

What is "stupid" is demanding data and then refusing to examine it when it is presented.

 

[HSienzant]

The Ruby Polygraph
by Robert Harris

In 1978, the HSCA polygraph panel of 9 experts was asked to
reexamine the polygraph test given to Jack Ruby in 1964, by
FBI polygraph expert, Bell P. Herndon. To say that the
panel was shocked and outraged by Herndon's procedures, is
an enormous understatement. It is my belief, based on their
report, that first, Ruby was indeed being deceitful when he
denied any relationship to Oswald, or to the assassination,
and second, that Herndon deliberately tried to hide evidence
that Ruby lied.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to add the link and to comply with rule 4. Do not post [...] large amounts of material available on other sites.

Nobody cares about your opinion. You're not qualified to render an informed judgment here. And you're just echoing claptrap you picked up from a conspiracy site in any case. Why doesn't your skepticism extend to what you read there?

 

[JayUtah]

What is "stupid" is demanding data and then refusing to examine it when it is presented.

How does that jive with your demands that your critics lay out and expostulate the prevailing theory, with which you're already quite obviously familiar, when you can get away with simply incorporation by reference of your affirmative case via a single hyperlink?