bknight
Master Poster
Do you have evidence that he did not assassinate JFK?
This is not a court of law, do you have any evidence that LHO did not participate in the assassination?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Do you have evidence that he did not assassinate JFK?
This is not a court of law, do you have any evidence that LHO did not participate in the assassination?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
All of this has been established in the threads and the predecessor threads. I have no interest in going down that helter scelter again. My position is this:
The physical and documentary evidence around the event is best explained by Oswald acting alone. I am not going to play a prosecutor, I am not interested in pretending to play by courtroom rules, this is a discussion about history.
If you disagree, post your theory.
If you want advice on specifics ask which documents read (which I believe has already been answered) or ask where in the previous threads you will find points that interest you, but I suspect you will only have to read the first score of pages on thread one to see some pretty exhaustive posts outlining what is now the consensus.
Please note that this is taking at face value your claim that you are well read and familiar with the case. If you are not, and this is a misjudgement then feel free to ask advice on where to start your reading so you can better understand why people believe the historical case is made. People are already pointing you towards the WC, not to give you short shrift, but assuming you are well versed in the shorthand.
HSienzant
Philosopher
What a bizarre claim. The Warren Commission's 26 volumes contain testimony and statements of witnesses and experts, along with hard evidence and photographs admitted in evidence. Ditto with the HSCA 12 volumes.
Those are considered evidence in any court in the land. Earlier, you were pretending we had to meet the criminal trial standard, now it appears you don't even accept what criminal courts do -- eyewitness and expert testimony as evidence.
We need not meet your artificially high standards for evidence against Oswald, and we need not convince you of the evidence. That's again an artificially high standard, as you reject any evidence you don't like and don't detail what evidence you'd be willing to accept.
I'll deal with Weitzman and Boone separately. Quote Roger Craig's testimony before the Warren Commission where he mentions a Mauser.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
It isn't our problem to address your lack of reading comprehension. Regardless of your religious-like belief, the burden of proof of Oswald's guilt has been met.
Has it? Show me.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Read the thread. Read the reference material.
Get back to us with legitimate questions.
Nobody has to start the discussion over from the beginning because you just got here.
But that's what you're asking us to do.
No, you need to catch up. Read the thread.
Hank
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
This indicates more of your own reading comprehension problem. Solve that first.
Are they? Are you making a legal claim here?
I believe you missread me. I claim that I could not find any evidence of Oswald killing JFK in said reports. If you have found any, please cite them and argue for their veracity.
Fantasies abound. You are making the claim that Oswald killed JFK, and I ask you on what evidence you are refering to in making said claim.
You have listed some of your evidence above, but that did not seem to lead anywhere, did it?
I’ll make it simple for you. You claimed that Oswald OWNED the alleged murder weapon, so where is your evidence of this ownership?
Start with that.
You asked me to present the evidence of their written statements identifying the rifle found on the 6th floor in TSBD as a Mauser.
I presented it. Now what?
I did not claim that he gave it to the Commission. They did not ask him. They were not interested in the identity of the alleged murder weapon?
No, it show you making emty claims without a trace of evidence backing it up.
Like a breath of bad air.
1. You are making the claim that Oswald killed JFK.
2. I ask you to present som evidence of the veracity of said claim.
3. You list some of them (alleged) but do not present any sources or actual evidence.
4. I ask you to do just that, to present the evidence.
5. You start with ad hominem and babbleing rants on me making absurd demands.
If I were you I’d be delighted to present the evidence. So, why this peculiar modesty?
Are you shy?
Last edited:
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Looks like you nailed it Hank. Extreme JAQing with much feigned ignorance. Aka tr....
What is it that you can’t understand, Steve?
1. Hank is making the claim that Oswald killed JFK.
2. I ask him on what evidence he is making said claim.
3. He presents some but without quotes or sources.
4. I ask him to present said quotes and sources.
5. He begin ranting and babbeling calling me names.
If I made a stament grounded in sound evidence, I’d be delighted to present them.
You would not? Why?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
He's just a "Nuh uh"er who apparently has nothing else to offer. No matter what evidence he sees, it won't be enough. It's like a very young child who just discovered the word "Why" and asks it no matter what the parent says.
I keep waiting for a CTist who can provide some value but I've been disappointed by the last ones.... well, all of them.
I keep waiting for a CTist who can provide some value but I've been disappointed by the last ones.... well, all of them.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
He repeated the null hypothesis.
He stated the documents that contain the evidence that convinced him.
He is under no obligation to prove the null.
He is under no obligation to convince you of the null.
He is under no obligation to discuss the subject in legal terms rather than historical.
He is under no obligation to repeat a discussion already had multiple times.
You offer no reasonable critique of the documentary records. If you are not convinced then offer a better theory, or an alternative narrative to discuss.
If you have a question about why a certain piece of evidence convinced the consensus then ask that.
People are not refusing to answer your challenge, they are simply pointing out it was already met before you joined the conversation. If you ask for help finding the answers already posted people will help, but it seems unfair to expect the long conversation to be repeated.
bknight
Master Poster
I ask you for any information that indicates Owsald did not have anything to do with the assassination?
I ask you for evidence that Oswald is not the killer.
Include in your remarks any/all the sources.
See above.
Quit dodging questions to you.
Everyone would be delighted if you posted some evidence instead of playing 20 questions.
I'm not shy but instead of asking questions present any evidence and the source for Oswald not perpetrating the assassination.
I know this is not a court of law. Why are keep saying that?
Hank claims that Oswald killed JFK. I wonder if he have any evidence supporting that claim.
This is an absurd request, you say?
You should stop this before you embarrass yourself further. We have seen exactly this type of stubborn, know-it-all, show-me shtick dozens of times on this thread and related ones. Your game is to wait till someone offers one of many well-known pieces of evidence against Oswald, and then try to refute it with claims of official fabrication, witness lying, imperfect chains of evidence, and so forth. We've seen all of that many times and have been unimpressed by it.
No one is interested in your artificially exalted standards of proof ("Warren Commission? Bah! Show me!"). These standards don't exist outside of your head. No one wants to hear, for the thousandth time, that you think that the "crime of the century" deserved better police work, and that simple bureaucratic error or incompetence is evidence of conspiracy. Some of us here call that type of argument the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy. You don't run the zoo, and you don't get to make up elevated standards of proof and requirements for professional competence, particularly in areas, such as police work, that you likely know nothing about.
You are disincentivizing us from engaging seriously with you. You come on here, arrogant and omniscient, and you demand that we prove something to you that some here have been discussing for years on this site. When we suggest that you review some of that earlier material to see what has been said, and also to see how your claims and your approach have been attempted by others and have failed before, you say in effect, "I'm not interested in what you've discussed earlier; I demand that you play the game according to my rules: you feed me questions and I show what a clever defense attorney I am."
You're nothing new under our sun. Just more of the same tedious CT.
Last edited:
Can you explain to me what a null hypothesis is in historical inquiry? People bring it up a lot, but it makes no sense to me. Here is how I see it:
A null hypothesis makes sense in controlled experiments. In them, there is always a possibility that any results are not due to a real effect, but due to chance. For example, your experimental medication doesn't work, but by chance you put all the healthiest people in the experimental group and all the sickest people in the control group. It looks like your medication works even though it doesn't. To rule this out, we demand that experimental results are strong enough to reject the null hypothesis that there is no effect. In the absence of strong evidence otherwise, we stick to the null hypothesis.
I have no idea how to translate any of this to the study of history, or to JFK in particular. We are trying to evaluate evidence about who killed JFK. In the absence of strong evidence implicating any particular suspect, there is no default assumption about who did it. It would be insane to say, "We find no strong evidence that LBJ did it, therefore we conclude that Oswald did it, even though we don't have any evidence specifically pointing to Oswald." We conclude Oswald did it because there is evidence he did it, not because it is the default conclusion. It isn't a null hypothesis; it is the reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
I bring this up because calling something "the null hypothesis" implies one doesn't need to make a positive case for it, which is an absurd view to take about Oswald's guilt. Many posts seem to make this mistake, though, and we end up with posts essentially saying, "It's the null hypothesis. I don't have to say anything. I automatically win." Conspiracy theorists rightly respond that this is ridiculous, and the debate, such as it is, becomes worse.
If you don't want to waste time talking about vague, boring, long-debunked conspiracy claims, just say so. We don't need to pretend that null hypotheses about historical events exist.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You should familiarize yourself with the evidence that Hank mentioned in the JFK assassination case. It doesn't sound like you've read any of it.
So, you adhere to the legal/philosophical tradition that states:
- Guilty Until Proven Innocent?
What a peculiar way of thinking ...
Last edited:
- Status