JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Exactly. That's why real science is hard.
And what evidence of a second sniper's nest was found there?
So no, then, you don't know where the shots were fired from. You haven't produced a testable hypothesis for it and then gone on to test it. This is why your hypothesis doesn't deserve as much respect as others that were tested.
Two reasons. First and easiest, you've demonstrated you don't respond to them.
Second, you throw around "verbatim" as if we should be able to find some quotable sentence or statement that, by itself, expresses some glaring fault. The majority of your errors are errors in reasoning, which require examination at the conceptual level, and in the broader context of what you've said here and elsewhere.
No. Many of your statements are phrased as complex-question fallacies, which effectively beg the premise. You don't even have to state the premise explicitly to have begged it. Begging the question has nothing to do with the "solidity" of evidence provided; it's when you omit entirely the argument for a proposition, and yet ask the reader to take it as true. Also, you don't know what "presumption" means. If you think it's something you need or provide evidence for, then you don't know what the word means.
It does it he can link to or otherwise refer to the refutation and then subsequently to the part where you explicitly, gleefully said you were going to ignore it.
No, you may not demand that your critics respond only in the form of an affirmative counterclaim.
Apparently for you it is, since you want to disqualify all forms of analysis and refutation that don't conform to the few you seem to understand.
Irrelevant. You ignore uncomfortable rebuttals regardless of form.
Pretty much when you stop ignoring people you can't refute, and when you stop whining so much in every post about how shabbily you think you're being treated.
No. We've demonstrated that you don't have the faintest idea what any of your cited skeptics actually say. (I notice you dropped Sagan from your list.) Nor do you espouse in any way their principles or ideals.
As to consilience, I think we pretty amply demonstrated that you have no clue what it means, and that you have little if any interest in finding out. As to these "phantom" issues, it seems you can't decide from post to post whether they're unimportant, or irrelevant, or instead support your claim. Why would a reader not conclude that you're in over your head?
No. You're not even very skilled with your attempts to employ every pity-party ploy that there is. You're not as clever with that tactic as you think.
No. That is not in the least an ad hominem argument. And yes, it is absolutely correct that you do not get to presume that the key premise in your theory just somehow magically happened.
Do not be proud of your Gish gallop. You address little if anything people say in response. And as has been repeatedly asked and answered, the problem with your conclusions is that they are inferences that amount to nothing more than your say-so interpretation of the evidence to which you refer. You literally don't know the difference between interpretation and fact, and between inference and fact.
Asked and answered. You have absolutely no correct understanding of "burden of proof," and you are already well familiar with the evidence against which you're arguing.
No one is claiming "it has been proven" that Oswald acted alone. We are saying there is a body of well-known evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin. You are telling us he wasn't the only assassin. Naturally we want you to point to the body of evidence that points to someone else as well. All you can manage is an indirect argument based on your pretense to understand someone else's work.
Last edited:
