They don't. You just pretend they do when you have no plausible answer to my arguments.
And the evidence for that is ... nowhere to be found. Unpresented by you.
This fallacy is about assuming that the cause of an event is a previous event which has no logical connection. But the connection here is rock solid and fully consistent with the known facts and evidence.
Your ad hoc definition of the post hoc fallacy isn't convincing. What part of the link here says you get to assume the connection and evidence, Robert?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
If a prosecutor proves that a gun was purchased two hours before it was used in a murder, does its owner get to shout, "Ad hoc fallacy"? I suppose he can, but the judge isn't going to be impressed.
Yes, especially since there's no such thing as an "ad hoc" fallacy. If you're assuming the gun was used in the murder, yes, that's the *post hoc* fallacy. Just because Bob moved into the apartment before the furnace started having problems doesn't mean the furnace's problems are caused by Bob moving into the apartment. There is a connection there, but it's still a post hoc fallacy. Ditto with your claims. So much of your argument is simply based on assumptions and logical fallacies, it's ridiculous.
Let's rewrite your argument, but substitute "went to the doctor" as the preceding event instead.
This article is particularly interesting due to Kohn's discovery that the very next day after HSCA investigators made phone calls to try to locate Charles Nicolletti, Charles Nicolletti went to the doctor, he was the victim of a gangland style murder.
Similar fates befell Johnny Roselli who was murdered shortly after telling the Washington Post that the mob ordered Jack Ruby to kill Oswald, going to the doctor, and to Sam Giancana, just five days before he was scheduled to appear before the Church Committee which was investigating mob connections to the CIA he was scheduled to go to the doctor.
The connection and the evidence is still assumed, in my version and yours.
We'll await the evidence of the connection. If you have any. Of course, you don't, so you merely protest the *post hoc* fallacy is applied incorrectly. It's not.
In the context of a debate, the connection should be debated, not blown off by a misinterpretation of the ad hoc fallacy.
You're not presenting any evidence to establish the connection. You're just asserting the connection is real ("the connection here is rock solid"). Until you present the evidence establishing the connection is real, and not simply assumed, you're utilizing the Post Hoc fallacy to get the mileage you want out of the charge.
This is typical of the phony "fallacy" accusations which are thrown around in this place, which are almost always founded on unproven assumptions - accusing a person of "begging the question" on the unproven assumption that he has not established his presumption, is a classic example.
Begging the question is a real thing, Bob, and you do it a lot. I pointed out numerous examples in the past as you utilized them.
And "burden of proof" is irrelevant when it comes to debatable issues. Each side bears the responsibility of presenting their own arguments. Pretending that only your adversary is required to present evidence, is just a tactic and a rather slimy one at that.
Well, let's look at the Katzenbach memo claims, shall we? You presented your interpretation of the second paragraph of the memo which you pulled from some conspiracy book someplace. I pointed out you got the date of the memo wrong, and you also were quoting the memo out of context, giving you the first paragraph to restore some of the context. I also pointed out that Katzenbach's testimony about the memo is on the record, but you failed to mention it or rebut it in any fashion. I pointed out that Katzenbach's view on the intent of the memo is more valuable than your interpretation, as he's the letter writer and you're not. I also pointed out that your argument consists entirely of your telling us what you think the memo intent was. I also pointed out the first paragraph explains more fully Katzenbach's intent, which is why you (and conspiracy books) fail to mention it.
You have yet to address it, or present any evidence that supports your interpretation of the out-of-context part of the memo you quoted.
Where's your evidence, Bob?
Now, discussing the evidence back-and-forth didn't work there, because you simply failed to address those issues.
I likewise tried to discuss the witnesses you cited, and you ignored it.
I likewise tried to discuss the evidence for Jim Braden being part of a conspiracy, and for shots being fired from the Dal-Tex building, and you pretty much ignored the request for any evidence there too.
I likewise tried to discuss your claim that there wasn't much evidence indicating Oswald fired any shots, and you snipped all my points there, then ignored the reposts.
Your request for us to "let's discuss the evidence" isn't working when you're the one failing to address the evidence.
As someone here once noted, "Pretending that only your adversary is required to present evidence, is just a tactic and a rather slimy one at that."
And your "loaded question fallacy" is even more ridiculous. You concede absolutely nothing by acknowledging that I have merely presented evidence, since you have every right to declare that this evidence does not prove my claims or that I have misinterpreted it.
As I noted, you had previously alleged I denied the evidence you presented, with you invoking the logical fallacy of a strawman argument. I challenged you to support your claim by quoting me. At that point you switched from claiming I had said to asking if I would say it, with you invoking the logical fallacy of a loaded question.
The visible actions of the limo passengers, are indisputably, evidence - but evidence of what? That remains to be debated.
It has been. You simply deflected or ignored any points made by others that you're assuming what you need to prove, that your assumptions aren't evidence, and that the science doesn't enable you to draw the conclusions you are making. Do you remember all that? What do you mean that the evidence remains to be debated? It has been debated. You simply kept asserting you were right, and your opponents were wrong.
The same is true of Alvarez's analysis and the consensus of the witnesses.
No, we've looked at the witness statements you quoted, and found they are susceptible of other interpretations different from the one you're trying to foist on the witness statements. Your rebuttal has been missing.
You've also told us your analysis is better than Alvarez's analysis, and Alvarez made mistakes. So your fall-back position can't be "Alvarez is an expert at this", as you yourself claim his analysis included errors that you are fixing.
My challenge only asks you to present a harmless, honest answer.
No, Bob. That's the nature of a loaded question. A common example is "Do you still beat your wife?" and asking for a simple yes or no answer, which is essentially what you're doing. Why don't you simply go back to my first posts on the subject and try rebutting the points I did make, instead of constantly trying to wedge logical fallacies into the discussion here?
Hank
