Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[RoboTimbo]

You guys wouldn't do anything to drive the dissenters away, would you

No, we want them to have the courage to state their coherent alternative hypothesis so we can discuss it.

 

[Robert Harris]

But I replied: Nellie was confused.

I didn't ask if she was confused. I asked some very specific and extremely important questions.

I am baffled at your reluctance to answer them. If you don't trust my judgement, then surely you trust your own.


Mrs Connally testified that she heard one shot and then looked back and saw JFK with his hand raised up to his face.

She said that some time after that she heard the shot which she thought, wounded her husband and that she immediately turned to him and pulled him back to her.

1. When do you see her look back at JFK?

2. When do you see her turn to her husband as she said she did, in reaction to the second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

This very slow motion Zapruder segment should be helpful to you.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I get to refute you by pointing out that you've committed a multitude of logical fallacies

Ok, let's start with that accusation and then we can work through the others.

Cite me verbatim, and let's see if you're right.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, let's start with that accusation and then we can work through the others.

Cite me verbatim, and let's see if you're right.

Stop trying to get other people to do the proving. That's what we call shifting the burden of proof. You have a lot of proving to do yourself. I suggest you get to doing that.

 

[Robert Harris]

You mean, aside from prominence in Google searches ?

Hmm.. you have a point there. Do you have a site? I'll upload em to you.

 

[Robert Harris]

Stop trying to get other people to do the proving.

We all bear the burden of proving our own assertions, my friend.

Of course I will challenge people to support their claims and accusations. You should too.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I didn't ask if she was confused. I asked some very specific and extremely important questions.

I am baffled at your reluctance to answer them. If you don't trust my judgement, then surely you trust your own.


Mrs Connally testified that she heard one shot and then looked back and saw JFK with his hand raised up to his face.

She said that some time after that she heard the shot which she thought, wounded her husband and that she immediately turned to him and pulled him back to her.

1. When do you see her look back at JFK?

2. When do you see her turn to her husband as she said she did, in reaction to the second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

This very slow motion Zapruder segment should be helpful to you.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Bob, it's all about what Nellie said. You are trying to make her recollection match the Z film. There's no reason to expect anything like an exact match.

But I'm sure this has something to do with your attempted proof of your theory.
I think you should spell out what that is.

 

[JayUtah]

OHMIGOD!! Let me count the ways.

None of those is the statement you attributed to me. You asked, "So you would prefer to continue making ambiguous, insulting generalizations, without lifting a finger to prove them?" I made no such statement of preference or intent.

 

[Belz...]

We all bear the burden of proving our own assertions, my friend.

None of us are making assertions that challenge the established theory. YOU are. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. No one here will allow you to do that.

 

[JayUtah]

We all bear the burden of proving our own assertions, my friend.

Asked and answered. The whole concept of burden of proof is that it is asymmetrical. For a full discussion see Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

 

[Belz...]

Asked and answered. The whole concept of burden of proof is that it is asymmetrical.

Yeah but, man, that is SO arbitrary !

 

[HSienzant]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.

Are you serious? You quote one sentence and attempt to rebut that, ignoring everything else in the lengthy post, including all the evidence I referenced, and asked you to provide the counter evidence that puts your arguments on an equal footing? Below is the original exchange that you quoted one sentence from. I put in red the ONLY point you tried to argue with. The remainder you ignored.

========== QUOTE ===========

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

========== UNQUOTE ===========

Above is what I wrote. I put in red the ONLY point you tried to debate (and you even failed at that - invoking logial fallacies like a strawman argument, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof). Let's examine your attempted rebuttal:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

Strawman.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to

Strawman.

and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions

Strawman.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims

Shifting the burden of proof.

Please elaborate.

I put more than enough elaboration into the post you're avoiding responding to. Try rebutting the points therein, and producing sufficient evidence to support your earlier claims.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

HUH?!
Do you really think there is an "absence of evidence to support the LN theory"?

Of course there is and you're going to admit it, a few passages down

I said you were demanding proof "that Oswald acted alone," which you have done repeatedly (I quoted you).

No you didn't; you quoted me saying there was no proof. That was a declarative statement, not a demand for anything.

In the past I have asked people who claimed that such evidence existed, to describe it. But when they make such an assertion, they bear the burden of proving it.

Here's an example, of which there are many.
30th June 2015, 06:04 PM , Robert Harris wrote:
"You have NEVER proven that Oswald acted alone, which is why you are so upset that I would challenge you to do so."

Yes, but I was referring as I'm sure you know, to challenges that they support their own claims that such proof existed. Those challenges were issued in direct response to their assertions.

I have never in my life, attempted to claim that the absence of evidence that Oswald acted alone, proves my case. You cannot cite me saying that in this forum or in 20 years, posting on the usenet. Your accusation that I would do such a thing is disingenuous and outrageously false.

I said that "proving Oswald acted alone" would be essentially proving a negative and that all we poor mortal non-conspiracists can say is that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else even knew what Oswald was planning.

Don't change the subject. Neither the citation you posted nor anything else I ever said, supports your accusation.

Oh, and also no evidence whatsoever of another shooter.

Sigh.. another zero content assertion that you could never prove to save your life.

I am looking forward to your answers re: Nellie, BTW. Do you need more time to evaluate the Zapruder segment?

 

[HSienzant]

Wow. Talk about your "spasmodic avoidance movements of the head."

Now that is FUNNY.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sigh.. another zero content assertion that you could never prove to save your life.

Just like Robert Prey one other CTist.

I am looking forward to your answers re: Nellie, BTW. Do you need more time to evaluate the Zapruder segment?

Pitiful attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bob, it's all about what Nellie said. You are trying to make her recollection match the Z film. There's no reason to expect anything like an exact match.

But I'm sure this has something to do with your attempted proof of your theory.
I think you should spell out what that is.

The questions are actually, pretty easy Sandy. Take your time studying the Zapruder segment.

Mrs Connally testified that she heard one shot and then looked back and saw JFK with his hand raised up to his face.

She said that some time after that she heard the shot which she thought, wounded her husband and that she immediately turned to him and pulled him back to her.

1. When do you see her look back at JFK?

2. When do you see her turn to her husband as she said she did, in reaction to the second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

This very slow motion Zapruder segment should be helpful to you.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

 

[JayUtah]

He explained a totally fabricated set of "rules" that have never been approved by the forum or anyone else outside of a little group of hardcore, LN advocates.

No. I carefully distinguished at the time the difference between the forum's ground rules for civil conduct and the properties of rational discourse. You tried to argue this "forum approval" nonsense before, and you were reminded also then that the distinction had been drawn from the start.

Burden of proof is a ridiculously easy term to define. It doesn't require a long winded rant.

Carl Sagan, whom you designated as a mentor, saw fit to write at length about it. I've noticed whenever a word or phrase from the critical-thinking vocabulary is brought up, you want to foist a simplistic definition of it, either your own or a single sentence from the dictionary. That summary definitions are sometimes necessary and therefore exist is not proof that summary definitions cover the subject in a depth suitable for some purpose.

 

[turingtest]

None of us are making assertions that challenge the established theory. YOU are. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. No one here will allow you to do that.

Asked and answered. The whole concept of burden of proof is that it is asymmetrical. For a full discussion see Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

I'm honestly not sure if Robert just really can't get this, or if, like consilience, it's a concept he needs to deny because he knows it puts him in an untenable spot. The way he missed the point of my "trashtalk" post recently inclines me to the former; if so, it doesn't say much for the guy who wants everyone to think he's able enough to overturn an established history with "startle reflexes" and whatnot. If it's the latter, it doesn't say much for a guy who claims to be arguing for "the truth."

 

[Robert Harris]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.

Are you serious? You quote one sentence and attempt to rebut that, ignoring everything else in the lengthy post, including all the evidence I referenced,

I will be happy to address the rest of your post, after we resolve this. Your accusation that my articles and presentations contain no valid evidence is not just insulting, it is also a very lame attempt to evade a lot of genuine evidence on the grounds that I am "begging the question", which would only be true if I had failed to make a solid case, which as we both know, has never been refuted.

So, you need to justify that rather insulting claim or admit that you are wrong.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

HUH?!
Do you really think there is an "absence of evidence to support the LN theory"?

Of course there is and you're going to admit it, a few passages down

It appears that you can only be referring, yet again and as illogically as ever, to an absence of proof that Oswald acted alone, not the evidence that establishes the fact that Oswald plugged the president. Otherwise, I can't imagine how you deem there to be any lack, let alone "absence"(!), of evidence.

I said you were demanding proof "that Oswald acted alone," which you have done repeatedly (I quoted you).

No you didn't; you quoted me saying there was no proof. That was a declarative statement, not a demand for anything.

Yes, it was a declarative statement that people weren't backing up their claim that Oswald acted alone.
This is a distinction without a difference, mere sophistry.

In the past I have asked people who claimed that such evidence existed, to describe it. But when they make such an assertion, they bear the burden of proving it.

Amazing.
Who in the world has ever claimed there was proof "that Oswald acted alone"?
You still do not get the part about proving a negative.
Or burden of proof.
http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/0...-part-5-occams-razor-and-the-burden-of-proof/
"Suppose, for example, that I was with you when your car failed to start, and you asserted that it was the battery, while I claimed that it was aliens. In this case, the burden of proof would be on me to support my hypothesis, rather than being on you to refute my hypothesis. In other words, I am the one making the unparsimonious claim, therefore, I have to support my claim, but you are not required to refute it. So, if you said, “prove that it was aliens” I could not fire back with the well-worn internet response, “well prove that it wasn’t aliens.” The burden of proof is on me, not you. This is very important to understand because people try to shift the burden of proof all the time, and it is not logically valid. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim."

Here's an example, of which there are many.
30th June 2015, 06:04 PM , Robert Harris wrote:
"You have NEVER proven that Oswald acted alone, which is why you are so upset that I would challenge you to do so."

Yes, but I was referring as I'm sure you know, to challenges that they support their own claims that such proof existed. Those challenges were issued in direct response to their assertions."

I've never seen anyone claim that they have proof "that Oswald acted alone." For the reason I have been reiterating, to your evident incomprehension.

I have never in my life, attempted to claim that the absence of evidence that Oswald acted alone, proves my case. You cannot cite me saying that in this forum or in 20 years, posting on the usenet. Your accusation that I would do such a thing is disingenuous and outrageously false.

I never said you claimed that the absence of evidence Oswald acted alone proves your case. Yet there is no question that you have asked for proof that Oswald acted alone, to counter your supposed demonstration that he did not.

I said that "proving Oswald acted alone" would be essentially proving a negative and that all we poor mortal non-conspiracists can say is that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else even knew what Oswald was planning.

Don't change the subject. Neither the citation you posted nor anything else I ever said, supports your accusation.

"Change the subject"?!
What accusation? That you have repeatedly made the (purely rhetorical, of course) demand for proof that Oswald "acted alone"?
Not an accusation, a proven charge.

Oh, and also no evidence whatsoever of another shooter.

Sigh.. another zero content assertion that you could never prove to save your life.

I am looking forward to your answers re: Nellie, BTW. Do you need more time to evaluate the Zapruder segment?

No, I have already given this all the time I am ever going to give it.