Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Tomtomkent]

Ok Manifesto, I’m going to explain where everyone else is at, so you can start your conversation here with everybody willing to give you the best possible benefit of the doubt:

In the predecessor threads it has been established, to the satisfaction of most posters here, that the Warren Commission was largely correct and Oswald is the only shooter we have evidence for.

This is not a criminal trial, the burden of proof is not to reach prosecution standard.

Instead, as people discussing history, the null hypothesis, the benchmark theory, is that LHO was the assassin.

It will not be sen,by most posters, as their job to convince you of this, it is their view. If you wish to argue another theory the best way is to offer us a complete narrative with supporting links and clear suspects, then to answer questions so others may weigh your theory against the null.

 

[HSienzant]

Enough for ya!?

Manifesto will question each and every claim, asking for the evidence for each. This from a person who claimed to be well-read on the subject:

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

Most CTs will, of necessity, adopt the position that everything pointing to Oswald is, for some reason, falsified by the conspirators. This one pretends not to know this evidence, despite claiming to be well-read on the subject.

Note as well his inability to answer any questions about his theory. Like all other CTs before him, he simply ignores those questions and keeps repeating his own argument.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Good. Do you have any evidence of Oswald killing JFK?

The burden of proof for Oswald killing JFK has been met. Did you have some alternative hypothesis to put forward? The burden of proof now rests with those making a counter claim.

If you know so little about the assassination that you aren't aware of the evidence, you may want to do some remedial reading up on the subject before posting again.

 

[manifesto]

The burden of proof for Oswald killing JFK has been met. Did you have some alternative hypothesis to put forward? The burden of proof now rests with those making a counter claim.

If you know so little about the assassination that you aren't aware of the evidence, you may want to do some remedial reading up on the subject before posting again.

No it had not. Do you have any evidence of Oswalds guilt?

Show them.

 

[manifesto]

Manifesto will question each and every claim, asking for the evidence for each. This from a person who claimed to be well-read on the subject:

You like to speak about your opponents, correct?

Most CTs

You like to call names, correct?

will, of necessity, adopt the position that everything pointing to Oswald is, for some reason, falsified by the conspirators.

Only if that is the case and only if standards of correct procedure for handling said evidence have not been met.

”It’s just so”, doesn’t cut it.

This one pretends not to know this evidence, despite claiming to be well-read on the subject.

Exactly. I have not found any.

Have you? Show me, Hank.

Note as well his inability to answer any questions about his theory. Like all other CTs before him, he simply ignores those questions and keeps repeating his own argument.

Hank

You are the one making the claim that Oswald killed JFK. Therefore it is you who have the burden of proof.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim of yours?

Show them.

 

[HSienzant]

No it had not. Do you have any evidence of Oswalds guilt?

Show them.

Asked and answered. I posted the links to the 27 books comprising the Warren Commission's published evidence and conclusions, and the 13 books comprising the HSCA's.

You claimed to be well-read on this subject.

Yet you profess to not know of the evidence contained within those 40 volumes.

There's a serious contradiction in your claims that you need to resolve before you start demanding anything.

You could also cite the evidence for some of your claims. I asked about the three officers who supposedly filed affidavits denoting the finding of a Mauser. You have yet to name them, or provide links to those affidavits.

It was requested here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252353&postcount=751

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Ok Manifesto, I’m going to explain where everyone else is at, so you can start your conversation here with everybody willing to give you the best possible benefit of the doubt:

In the predecessor threads it has been established, to the satisfaction of most posters here, that the Warren Commission was largely correct and Oswald is the only shooter we have evidence for.

This is not a criminal trial, the burden of proof is not to reach prosecution standard.

Instead, as people discussing history, the null hypothesis, the benchmark theory, is that LHO was the assassin.

It will not be sen,by most posters, as their job to convince you of this, it is their view. If you wish to argue another theory the best way is to offer us a complete narrative with supporting links and clear suspects, then to answer questions so others may weigh your theory against the null.

No, you are wrong. Hank made the claim that Oswald killed JFK. Are you now telling me that this is true because Warren Commission said so?

Is this some kind of Bible where everything stated is self evident?

If you believe that the WC presents convincing evidence and/or arguments, please cite it and present it here as support of your claim.

But, be specific.

 

[HSienzant]

You like to speak about your opponents, correct?

I point out the issues with your approach, and that of fellow conspiracy theorists. Your game plan is identical to that of most other CTs, paint the opposition as the prosecution, get them to post arguments of Oswald's guilt, then attempt to poke holes in it. It's not my fault your approach here is identical to the approach of almost every other JFK conspiracy theorist I've ever encountered.

You like to call names, correct?

Calling someone who theorizes a conspiracy but posts no evidence of one 'a conspiracy theorist' appears to be an appropriate label. What label do you prefer 'Oh Exalted One'?

Only if that is the case and only if standards of correct procedure for handling said evidence have not been met.

Show they haven't. You've asserted that. You haven't shown anything of the sort, however. In one instance you asserted a supposed questionable approach by three law enforcement officers who initially identified the weapon as a Mauser, but failed to support that assertion with the actual evidence. If you're going to be repeating conspiracy claims you found on the internet, you're going to be held responsible for them.

”It’s just so”, doesn’t cut it.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. Making a lot of claims and backing it up with thin air.

Exactly. I have not found any.

Then you haven't looked. Or not very hard.

Have you? Show me, Hank.

See the thread. See the 40 books. Read both. Get back to us.

You are the one making the claim that Oswald killed JFK. Therefore it is you who have the burden of proof.

It's been met. Why do I need to reproduce it all here? You want to argue that evidence? We can wait for something besides your claims that the evidence doesn't rise to the standards you expect.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim of yours? Show them.

Done. See the thread. See the 40 books I cited.

It appears Manifesto is unwilling or unable to tell us of any problems he found with the evidence (by pretending he hasn't seen any), and unwilling or unable to tell us why he professes to believe Oswald is not guilty of the crime, other than 'I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me'.

Question, Manifesto, what evidence would convince you? If there's is nothing that would, what's the point of playing your game?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, you are wrong. Hank made the claim that Oswald killed JFK. Are you now telling me that this is true because Warren Commission said so?

Straw man. Please avoid.

Is this some kind of Bible where everything stated is self evident?

Straw man.

If you believe that the WC presents convincing evidence and/or arguments, please cite it and present it here as support of your claim.

Again, you're simply attempting to put us in the position of prosecutor, so you can question anything we post. No need. You have the link. Tell us what's wrong with the Warren Report. We shouldn't have to spoon feed you a morsel at a time.

But, be specific.

We're waiting for your specific complaints. Complete with evidence. Do you have any?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

No it had not. Do you have any evidence of Oswalds guilt?

Show them.

That burden of proof has been met. If you have so little knowledge of the evidence, you should do some remedial reading to get caught up before posting again.

Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward?

 

[RoboTimbo]

. Therefore it is you who have the burden of proof.

Nope, there is no obligation to spoon feed a random CTist who has little knowledge of the evidence. Learn the evidence first. It may help you to read this thread and its previous incarnations. I believe you've participated before with just as little knowledge.

 

[manifesto]

Asked and answered. I posted the links to the 27 books comprising the Warren Commission's published evidence and conclusions, and the 13 books comprising the HSCA's.

You claimed to be well-read on this subject.

Yet you profess to not know of the evidence contained within those 40 volumes.

There's a serious contradiction in your claims that you need to resolve before you start demanding anything.

I have read it but have not found any evidence in there.

You have? Show me.

You could also cite the evidence for some of your claims. I asked about the three officers who supposedly filed affidavits denoting the finding of a Mauser. You have yet to name them, or provide links to those affidavits.

It was requested here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252353&postcount=751

Hank

Signed reports by Seymour Weitzman and E.L. Boone (Deputy Sheriff): https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf

The only written statements of the discovery to this day, states that it was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action rifle.

Boones and Weitzmans formal retractions came when interviewed by WC.

Deputy Roger Craig did never retract his testimony.

 

[manifesto]

That burden of proof has been met.

No, it has not.

If you have so little knowledge of the evidence, you should do some remedial reading to get caught up before posting again.

Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward?

I know of no evidence of Oswald killing JFK.

You do? Show me.

 

[manifesto]

I second or third the suggestion that manifesto read some of the history in these threads instead of asking for the same evidence to be posted again.

BTW I know LHO did it also.

Good. Tell me how you know that.

 

[manifesto]

Straw man. Please avoid.

Straw man.

Is it? You are saying that all the evidence can be found in the Warren Report. Sound familiar?

Once more. If there is evidence in said report, show them to me.

Again, you're simply attempting to put us in the position of prosecutor, so you can question anything we post. No need. You have the link. Tell us what's wrong with the Warren Report. We shouldn't have to spoon feed you a morsel at a time.

No, I wonder if you are able to present some evidence for your claim, i.e. that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you?

We're waiting for your specific complaints. Complete with evidence. Do you have any?

Hank

I ask you to present some evidence for your claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you have any? Show them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, you are wrong. Hank made the claim that Oswald killed JFK. Are you now telling me that this is true because Warren Commission said so?

Is this some kind of Bible where everything stated is self evident?

If you believe that the WC presents convincing evidence and/or arguments, please cite it and present it here as support of your claim.

But, be specific.

You seem not to grasp what I have said.
I did not refer to any claim Hank made.
I summarised a long discussion to explain where most participants happen to be coming from at the moment. I do not believe I am wrong about either their general consensus, or what would convince them.
Posters who read the thread differently will no doubt correct me, and I will take no offence from it, but I do not think you can tell me I am wrong on their behalf.

Not am I going to repeat my views already discussed at length, or take it upon myself to play the accuser of Oswald.

My view, of the historical evidence, is that Oswald acting alone is the most plausible explanation. If you have another theory post it, and discuss it.

If not read the previous incarnations of this thread for my opinions and the evidence I find convincing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is it? You are saying that all the evidence can be found in the Warren Report. Sound familiar?

Once more. If there is evidence in said report, show them to me.

No, I wonder if you are able to present some evidence for your claim, i.e. that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you?

I ask you to present some evidence for your claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you have any? Show them.

If you know the evidence is in the WC why do you need to be shown specifics?
Why should somebody be expected to post long lists of references to matters already in the discussion?
Why not just read the WC, or their previous posts?
Those are not snarky questions, I’m genuinely trying to understand what it is you want, by resetting the conversation to points gone over several times already.

 

[manifesto]

If you know the evidence is in the WC why do you need to be shown specifics?

Do I know this?

Why should somebody be expected to post long lists of references to matters already in the discussion?

1. State your claim.

2. Present your evidence.

3. Make your argument.

Looks familiar? No?

Why not just read the WC, or their previous posts?
Those are not snarky questions, I’m genuinely trying to understand what it is you want, by resetting the conversation to points gone over several times already.

I have repetedly stated what I want.

Evidence of Oswald killing JFK. Do you have any?

 

[manifesto]

You seem not to grasp what I have said.
I did not refer to any claim Hank made.
I summarised a long discussion to explain where most participants happen to be coming from at the moment. I do not believe I am wrong about either their general consensus, or what would convince them.
Posters who read the thread differently will no doubt correct me, and I will take no offence from it, but I do not think you can tell me I am wrong on their behalf.

Not am I going to repeat my views already discussed at length, or take it upon myself to play the accuser of Oswald.

My view, of the historical evidence, is that Oswald acting alone is the most plausible explanation. If you have another theory post it, and discuss it.

If not read the previous incarnations of this thread for my opinions and the evidence I find convincing.

1. The issue at hand is not if Oswald acted alone, it is if he acted at all.

2. Do you claim that Oswald assassinated JFK?

3. If so, do you have any evidence backing this claim of yours?

 

[abaddon]

If you know the evidence is in the WC why do you need to be shown specifics?

Do I know this?

Why should somebody be expected to post long lists of references to matters already in the discussion?

1. State your claim.

Done.

2. Present your evidence.

Done.

3. Make your argument.

Done.

Looks familiar? No?

Yep. Looks like what we have done here for years and also like what you are incapable of doing.

Why not just read the WC, or their previous posts?
Those are not snarky questions, I’m genuinely trying to understand what it is you want, by resetting the conversation to points gone over several times already.

I have repetedly stated what I want.

And you have it.

Evidence of Oswald killing JFK. Do you have any?

Yes. And you refuse to read it.