Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

That's why I went to a great deal of work to create that presentation, not alone to get it out to the world, but to have something to present in forums that would free me from having to write a small book, that would still have fallen short from explaining the analyses and evidence that drove me to my conclusions.

But you expect your critics to go to commensurate length (and depth) in refuting it. You reject valid refutations because, in your estimation, they do not consider the detail of your expostulation. There are various fallacious appeals that describe what you're doing, but it's best expressed as an analogy. If you spend 20 years restoring a classic automobile in meticulous and historically-accurate detail -- except for putting the steering wheel in the back seat -- then your critics' claims that it is therefore undriveable don't have to treat in meticulous detail the rest of the car.

In short, when your laborious process nevertheless includes an easily-seen fatal flaw, it is still a fatal flaw. Pointing to the rest of your demonstration doesn't save it.

 

[abaddon]

Hey, where are the womenfolk in this thread?

Conspicuous in their absence, I must say. What's that about?

Sauf pour la judicieuse Agatha, who drops in here only to keep us in line.

Plenty of females around here. It is simply that the JFK nonsense has limited appeal.

Perhaps the females are wise enough to recognise a failed proposition, while the males must put forth their prowess despite the pointless effort.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Plenty of females around here. It is simply that the JFK nonsense has limited appeal.

Perhaps the females are wise enough to recognise a failed proposition, while the males must put forth their prowess despite the pointless effort.

A pissing contest?
(Are we allowed to say that here?)

 

[Belz...]

Turingtest, it is OK to address me in the second person. I am a human being, just like you. I am not an object. I do not bite. I'm actually a 67 year old, great grandfather. I have a small dog. I have a 1900 rating at Chess.com. I am not a member of ISIS, the Klan, the Morman church, or the Republican party. I give a few bucks now and then to UNICEF, as best I can afford to do.

Ad hominem.

EDIT: I mean, ad hominem in the way you use it: that is, this has nothing to do with the topic, but about the poster.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hey, where are the womenfolk in this thread?

I asked mom to post something but when she started to accuse me of 11 kinds of fallacies, I turned the computer off on her:-(

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I asked mom to post something but when she started to accuse me of 11 kinds of fallacies, I turned the computer off on her:-(

Wow, your mom's no dummy!

 

[Robert Harris]

A pissing contest?
(Are we allowed to say that here?)

I'm glad to see you back, Sandy.

I asked if you would like to discuss the reactions or the witness statements, or something like that.

Are you up for it now?

 

[abaddon]

Yes, but what if the shooter wasn't thrilled with the notion of being spotted and drawing return from from a small army of Secret Service agents, deputies, police officers and even highway patrol officers?

That would require LHO to also be not so thrilled, no?

It's hard to find places to spend that big paycheck in prison, especially on death row, and harder yet if you've been shot to death.

Why did LHO not avail of such relief? Why was LHO the only one?

Why not use a weapon that was designed for subsonic bullets?

No sniper would do so. The loss of accuracy, not to mention projectile velocity would preclude any chance of a kill shot.

And the mob would have made their own suppressors, rather than buying commercial units that were traceable.

So what?

As we see in the videos, numerous people made their own, very effective suppressors out of flashlights, oil filters and beer cans. I suspect that with a little effort, the mob could have done at least as well.

Hollywood is not reality. Silencers do not work like in the moovies.

I doubt that they would have used, "readily available" weapons. Why wouldn't they have mounted a suppressor on a weapon that met there particular needs?

Because such items do not exist, except in the feverish imaginings of the deluded.

I can't be certain, but I have serious doubts that Oswald used a suppressed weapon.

He didn't. Why you would raise such a red herring is beyond comprehension. Your entire premise of multiple shooters from multitudinous directection rest on all of the using suppressors...except LHO.

Hmm.. no, I never put you on my ignore list. But I've been bombarded by a LOT of posts. If I haven't replied to something you feel is important, please repost it.

You have not replied to anything.

And thank you for presenting honest, evidence based arguments.

As opposed to presenting no evidence at all? Really?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm glad to see you back, Sandy.

I asked if you would like to discuss the reactions or the witness statements, or something like that.

Are you up for it now?

Bob, we've discussed this at length before.
Let me just clarify a couple points:
"The reactions": this is you begging the question again. You have failed to prove that the actions of the limo passengers in the frames you select from the Zapruder film are "reactions" to one specific thing.
"Are you up for it now?" You are alleging that the reason I do not want to engage in a more detailed argument at this moment is that I am not capable of rising to the occasion (no male-centric metaphor intended). But I think it should be understandable that any reasonably normal person—or even I myself—might get tired of going over the same ground again and again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm glad to see you back, Sandy.

I asked if you would like to discuss the reactions or the witness statements, or something like that.

Are you up for it now?

Don't you find it dishonest that you won't answer questions, Robert? What did the FBI do with all of your objective, verifiable evidence? Being objective and verifiable, they had no choice but to see exactly the same things you did, right?

 

[Pooneil]

Look man. The presentation is the BEST way to present my case. That's the bottom line.

This is the humors interpretation part, isn't it?

1.How every published professional investigation into JFK's death came to a remarkable similar conclusions on major points including the assertion that Kennedy was killed by shoots fired from the TSBD by LHO. These investigations that were painstaking produced, carried a great deal of detail and explanation and take many hours of reading to absorb and understand.

2. Yet some guy on the internet with no publishing record aside from JFK conspiracy and no adjudicated skills in investigation or technical evaluation of evidence came up more comprehensive and persuasive theory that can overturn the sum of all prior work. And his work can be be best presented in just an 1:16 hour long video.

3. And he won't state in written words what that theory is.

Yep. That's a Humorous Interpretation alright.

 

[abaddon]

A pissing contest?
(Are we allowed to say that here?)

The Autocensor would have struck it if not, so yes.

However, it is not strictly a pissing contest.

Some folks get rile up by the propagation of lies and consider it a moral duty to oppose said lies.

After all, if nobody steps up, we will all live in a magical world of fairies, whare homeopathy works for real, psychics talk to the dead and so forth.

Is that not the very purpose of this board? To shine a light upon superstitious nonsense? Why yes it is. And long may it continue.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

The Autocensor would have struck it if not, so yes.

However, it is not strictly a pissing contest.

Some folks get rile up by the propagation of lies and consider it a moral duty to oppose said lies.

After all, if nobody steps up, we will all live in a magical world of fairies, whare homeopathy works for real, psychics talk to the dead and so forth.

Is that not the very purpose of this board? To shine a light upon superstitious nonsense? Why yes it is. And long may it continue.

Hear, hear!

(But, of course, female skeptics have the same concerns. So it would seem that they must, as you suggested, have more sense than to argue with a wall.)

 

[Robert Harris]

That would require LHO to also be not so thrilled, no?

Abaddon, I am delighted to see you actually addressing issues related to the case, so I will be happy to answer your questions.

All people do not think the same, especially nutcases like Oswald. This is a guy who tried to commit suicide when he was about to lose his chance to work for US intelligence in the Soviet Union. And as in all violent or combat situations, some people are heroic and some are cowardly. There are very good reasons to believe that the Daltex shooter was in the latter group, having also gone to great lengths to insure that he remained unseen, and in going so far as to cut out a hole in the blinds, which he could hide behind when he shot.

Why did LHO not avail of such relief? Why was LHO the only one?

I cannot answer your question, since the Psychic Hotline closed down some time ago. But he was not the only one to fire an unsuppressed, high powered rifle, since he could have only fired one of the very loud shots at the end of the attack.

No sniper would do so.

Fascinating. First your friends say it is ridiculous that someone used a suppressor, and now it's ridiculous that someone didn't.

It's not easy to win around here

Hey! They fired suppressed shots when the limo was within 100 feet of the Daltex, then the big guns were used afterward.

The loss of accuracy, not to mention projectile velocity would preclude any chance of a kill shot.

Not within roughly 100 feet, which is when the last of the low caliber shots were fired.

So what?

Hollywood is not reality. Silencers do not work like in the moovies.

Tell that to the thousands of military snipers who have used them in every major war, since 1914, or the numerous police forces and SWAT teams who use them regularly.

Because such items do not exist, except in the feverish imaginings of the deluded.

With all due respect, I don't think I am the one who is deluded. Would you like to see how well these homade devices work? This one was made with an STP oil filter. Move the timer up to about 4:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_pcWPdSDs

He didn't. Why you would raise such a red herring is beyond comprehension.

It's not good enough to just blurt out that this is a "red herring". You need to prove it.

Your entire premise of multiple shooters from multitudinous directection rest on all of the using suppressors...except LHO.

If you are uncertain about what I have been saying, you should just ask me, rather than misrepresent me.

ALL of the shots fired after 223, that I am aware of, came from unsuppressed rifles and only one of them could have come from Oswald.

Your argument is wrong. It fails in every statement you made, especially in your false evaluation of suppressors and my analysis.

 

[HSienzant]

It's not good enough to just blurt out that my evidence does not constitute proof. You have to prove it.

The ball is in your court now. Post your refutation or admit that you don't have one.

Hilarious. No, I don't have to prove your arguments don't constitute proof.

That's just the LOGICAL FALLACY known as an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

You need to prove your arguments / opinions constitute proof. You don't just throw an argument onto the table and say "Have at it, gentlemen. Show me where I went wrong."

But that's precisely what you're doing.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bob, we've discussed this at length before.
Let me just clarify a couple points:
"The reactions": this is you begging the question again. You have failed to prove that the actions of the limo passengers in the frames you select from the Zapruder film are "reactions" to one specific thing.
"Are you up for it now?" You are alleging that the reason I do not want to engage in a more detailed argument at this moment is that I am not capable of rising to the occasion (no male-centric metaphor intended). But I think it should be understandable that any reasonably normal person—or even I myself—might get tired of going over the same ground again and again.

I guess I wasn't clear.

Would you like to discuss or debate the assassination?

If I have misinterpreted the nature of the those alleged reactions, then a debate would give you an excellent opportunity to discredit me.

You should be eager to do that.

But if you are not, would you mind answering a few questions for me? I have already answered questions for you, and I will certainly answer more, if they are relevant to the case.

Perhaps I could just ask a few?

 

[Robert Harris]

Hilarious. No, I don't have to prove your arguments don't constitute proof.

You just asserted that my arguments are insufficient, with no justification whatsoever.

Are you saying that you get to refute me by just blurting out that my evidence is not legitimate, without engaging in any kind specific explanation or debate?

That's just the LOGICAL FALLACY known as an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No sir, he who asserts, bears the burden of proving his assertions. You asserted that the dozen or so articles and presentations I posted here, contain no valid evidence.

You bear the responsibility of justifying that claim. It really is that simple, and you don't get to talk your way out of it by refusing to support your own words.

 

[beachnut]

...
What is conclusive, is the evidence which proves that Oswald did not fire all the shots - something you don't seem too interested in debating.

How do you debate a fantasy? Explain in great detail, how BS is evidence, and why the evidence failed to materialize. Is it magic evidence?

lol, and the Pulitzer Prize goes to...

The is no evidence to support the fictional claim, and there never will be.
Send me the million dollar Randi

 

[JayUtah]

You just asserted that my arguments are insufficient, with no justification whatsoever.

Nonsense. The identification of specious reasoning in your argument is a perfectly suitable justification.

Are you saying that you get to refute me by just blurting out that my evidence is not legitimate, without engaging in any kind specific explanation or debate?

He's not "blurting out" anything. He's identifying a fallacy in your line of reasoning and showing you where it is. You seem to want some sort of affirmative counterclaim, or some sort of detailed analysis of the foregoing evidence. But if the error in your argument doesn't lie there, you don't get to insist he go there.

You bear the responsibility of justifying that claim. It really is that simple...

Your reasoning is fallacious. It's that simple.

 

[HSienzant]

I certainly can present a "plausible" number of shooters. That would be three, but there may have been more. The fact that I do not know the precise number of assassins or shots, is not detrimental to my conclusions. It only demonstrates that I am not psychic and cannot consider shots that may have been inaudible.

.... And that did no damage. Right?

Other than your desire for more shots, if shots were inaudible and did no damage, how do you know there were more shots?

I cannot give you a list of confirmed locations, since I have no way of confirming them, just as you have no way of confirming with certainty, that Oswald fired shots that day.

Whoa, there, big fella. You're about to run off a cliff.

About ten witnesses who saw a shooter or a rifle in the sniper's nest window.

Oswald's weapon found on the same floor as the sniper's nest.

Three shells found in the sniper's nest traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Two large fragments found in the limousine traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

A nearly whole bullet found in Parkland traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

That's the evidence indicating Oswald fired those shots (I left out a ton of other evidence you may or may not be aware of, like his fingerprints on the trigger guard of the weapon recovered on the sixth floor, a paper bag bearing his prints found at the sniper's nest, two witnesses who saw him with a long paper sack that morning, him admitting he was in the building during the shooting, him having no alibi for the time of the shooting, him lying in custody about numerous items of evidence, him killing one police officer and attempting to kill another. etc. etc.). It's been referenced as "consilience". Hopefully you learn what it means sometime soon.

Now, on the other side, for those other shooting positions, you have what hard physical and what eyewitness evidence and what else that mutually reinforces each other and we can weigh against the evidence above?

Jay Utah explained it better but without all the messy detail I can't avoid going into:

Rail split. You are undoubtedly familiar with the body of evidence showing Oswald to be a person who fired successfully at Kennedy. It rises to a certain level of credibility, in an affirmative manner. There is no quantitative equivalence whatsoever between that and your inability to provide any affirmative (i.e., non-inferential) evidence for any of your hypothetical locations.

In straw-man fashion, you propose a standard of proof ("confirmation") that you're sure neither hypothesis can meet, only so you can suggest that you're no worse off than the conventional narrative. That ignores the very real difference between the evidence the conventional narrative can mount for its identification of the sniper's nest, and yours.

Hank