I just want to point out that this part is almost certainly not true. At some point, repeating oneself just becomes tedious, whether one is correct or not. Hank in particular has been debating this for years. Your questions are extremely broad and not even remotely new. There is no delight in answering them, because the answers are just repetition the basics of the case for the Nth time. At some point, one tends to refuse to do it again.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
I just want to point out that this part is almost certainly not true. At some point, repeating oneself just becomes tedious, whether one is correct or not. Hank in particular has been debating this for years. Your questions are extremely broad and not even remotely new. There is no delight in answering them, because the answers are just repetition the basics of the case for the Nth time. At some point, one tends to refuse to do it again.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I'm not sure you understand that LHO will never go to court over this. He's dead. His guilt is a matter of historical fact now.
Did you have some other hypothesis that accounts for a consilience of evidence?
He claimed he had evidence of this and that, but he somehow forgot to show it.
Maybe you have some evidence of Oswalds guilt of killing JFK you are keen on presenting?
While patiently awaiting, Hank?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Already been done. It won't be repeated just for a random CTist's convenience. You should familiarize yourself with the evidence that has been repeated multiple times in this and the previous threads. It sounds as if you aren't familiar with any of it.
The burden of proof of Oswald's guilt has been met and the null hypothesis, based on a consilience of evidence, is that Oswald was the lone assassin. You're welcome to try to propose a different hypothesis based on a consilience of evidence.
What would satisfy you of his guilt?
bknight
Master Poster
Then I suggest you stop treating it as if it were.
Read over the post he has made prior to asking this again.
Yes I submit it is an absurd request since you have not read over the pas history that Hank has presented.
Start answering my questions instead of asking more questions.
Consilience according to whom?
So ”a historical fact” (if indeed so) is immune to critical analysis? As, do you have any evidence for claiming this and that ”a historical fact”?
Or do you just like to give stuff fancy names?
I don’t care if Hank have debated the subject for a lifetime. I care of people telling the truth in public.
Hank states that Oswald killed JFK.
I’m still awaiting Hanks evidence for making that claim. Or that he retracts his statement.
You have issuses with this?
Last edited:
The null hypothesis has been used on this list as a rough analogy to the conclusion at which the majority of participants has arrived after years of discussion of the evidence: that Oswald shot JFK and was probably unassisted. That null hypothesis generally resembles--though it does not necessarily mirror point for point--the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission and subsequent official and unofficial investigations.
So we take the null hypothesis as a starting point for new entrants here--not because we are smugly claiming that we know the ultimate truth but rather because there is no sense in our rehearsing all the evidence that we have exhaustively discussed just because some new person shows up with a fresh hunger for debate. This has nothing to do with a claim that we "automatically win." It's about what interests us. And the only thing that will interest most of us--aside from general skirmishing which we all enjoy now and again--is a new entrant with an evidence-supported scenario that can challenge and potentially displace the conclusion of Oswald's guilt: the null hypothesis.
That hypothesis is exactly that: a temporary though seemingly durable resting-point in an ongoing inquiry. We think that the null hypothesis, arrived at inductively over decades, is entitled to some deference. The deference we show it is to urge new entrants to grapple fully and honestly with it.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Look up the word "consilience" right after you've familiarized yourself with the evidence.
Did you have some critical analysis of it?
Since you seem totally unfamiliar with the JFK assassination, you should familiarize yourself with it before posting again. Be sure your research involves reading this thread and its predecessors.
It's odd, I seem to recall you posting in one of these threads prior to turning tail and running away. I would have thought you would already be familiar with the evidence.
What do you mean by "Hank's evidence"? Are you suggesting that he has personal knowledge of the assassination that he is withholding? Or do you mean that there is some piece of the known evidence that he has not discussed on this list and related ones in the past? (You can look all that up.)
Your game is obvious. "Feed me! Feed me! Any morsel! Any claim! And I'll show you just what a smart, undeceived, and virtuous disputant I am." Yesterday's news.
The ”null hypothesis” is just another way of asume that which should be shown with the evidence.
The effect comes down to teleological aristotelian reasoning which states that facts, cause and effect, are sucked in place by the divine prime mover.
The last time someone suggested this kind of logic without being laught at, was ca half a millenia ago.
And, here we are, 2017.
The lone nut = the prime mover = the null hypotethis.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
To the chagrin of CTists, that's what a consilience of evidence shows. Did you have a claim against the null hypothesis?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Can we please stop pretending this is a court.
Innocence and guilt don’t decide the weight of obligation for the discussion.
There is an established consensus.
Whatever we feel about the implications, Good or bad, there is a narrative that best fits the breadth of evidence, and seems most likely. It is not perfect, but it is currently the best fit.
It is the Null.
In this case the null hypothesis is that events are as they seem, and evidence is varified. We have a rifle, we have shell cases, we have bullets and bullet fragments, x rays and autopsy records, photographs and film footage, the owner of the murder weapons, his false ID, his previous attempts, his ownership of the gun, experimental evidence, and many volumes of expert and witness testimony. All of this, at face value, to a reasonable level of scrutiny, points to LHO.
The most likely explanation, that best fits the most points of evidence, suggests Oswald.
Nobody has to make a legal claim, prove, or defend, the Null.
It is the benchmark against which other theories are tested.
If you believe ANYTHING else happened, present your theory.
It will be compared to the Null.
It will either fit fewer points of evidence and have more steps of complications, be as good and likely explanation, or fit more points of evidence with fewer complications.
Depending on how plausible it is, in comparison, it will be deemed more likely, less likely, or as likely as the Null.
Outside factors, legal claims, statements of innocence or guilt can be assessed after. This being a matter of history and not a court of law, the question is not if somebody is guilty or innocent, but to what degree of certainty we can level accusations.
Keep this in mind. The accusations against Oswald are not the only ones who weight will be assessed. By stating you see nothing in the evidence to suggest Oswald’s guilt, then accusations are being made against those who gathered, analysed or presented evidence, of either incompetence or in the cases of many CTs outright corruption and collusion.
These are considerations that have to be taken seriously, and not simply because one does not want to believe in the WC’s findings.
Innocence and guilt don’t decide the weight of obligation for the discussion.
There is an established consensus.
Whatever we feel about the implications, Good or bad, there is a narrative that best fits the breadth of evidence, and seems most likely. It is not perfect, but it is currently the best fit.
It is the Null.
In this case the null hypothesis is that events are as they seem, and evidence is varified. We have a rifle, we have shell cases, we have bullets and bullet fragments, x rays and autopsy records, photographs and film footage, the owner of the murder weapons, his false ID, his previous attempts, his ownership of the gun, experimental evidence, and many volumes of expert and witness testimony. All of this, at face value, to a reasonable level of scrutiny, points to LHO.
The most likely explanation, that best fits the most points of evidence, suggests Oswald.
Nobody has to make a legal claim, prove, or defend, the Null.
It is the benchmark against which other theories are tested.
If you believe ANYTHING else happened, present your theory.
It will be compared to the Null.
It will either fit fewer points of evidence and have more steps of complications, be as good and likely explanation, or fit more points of evidence with fewer complications.
Depending on how plausible it is, in comparison, it will be deemed more likely, less likely, or as likely as the Null.
Outside factors, legal claims, statements of innocence or guilt can be assessed after. This being a matter of history and not a court of law, the question is not if somebody is guilty or innocent, but to what degree of certainty we can level accusations.
Keep this in mind. The accusations against Oswald are not the only ones who weight will be assessed. By stating you see nothing in the evidence to suggest Oswald’s guilt, then accusations are being made against those who gathered, analysed or presented evidence, of either incompetence or in the cases of many CTs outright corruption and collusion.
These are considerations that have to be taken seriously, and not simply because one does not want to believe in the WC’s findings.
********. I’m suggesting that Hank presents his evidence of the veracity of his stated claim that Oswald killed JFK.
If he has indeed presented this somewhere else and sometime before this current discussion, surely he should have no problem in link to it or better still, cite it and present it in full here and now.
This is absurd according to your School of Thought?
Do not circumvent the auto-censor
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
Last edited by a moderator:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you are that unfamiliar with the assassination, it isn't up to us to educate you.
Unless you can overturn the null hypothesis, it will have to stand.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Perhaps the most important aspect to stress is that a full theory has to be expressed. However week you believe the null to be, it is a fully formed theory that attempts to meet a balance of evidence. Picking at individual threads does not eliminate the pattern. We expect contradicting evidence and mistakes, even gaps, by the nature of our imperfect world. Pointing out the world is imperfect may move it down a probability scale, but unless you provide something more likely, it remains a Null.
To provide another point of history for an example, you can argue if Hillary or Tensing reached the summer of Everest first, but the Null will likely remain that they reached it together, and saw it as an achievement shared.
To provide another point of history for an example, you can argue if Hillary or Tensing reached the summer of Everest first, but the Null will likely remain that they reached it together, and saw it as an achievement shared.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Reading the first pages of the first thread of this discussion? As has been suggested.
Or reading the WC as was suggested.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,140
Clairvoyance isn't required of someone who has "read it all".
Pick a substantive point in the Warren Commission report you disagree with and say why. Maybe someone will be interested in talking about that point.
It is recuired if your opponent is not specifically letting you know what evidence HE/SHE is refering to when making a specific claim.
It’s lika stating that Jesus was a historical person and as evidence for this refer to the Bible as a whole.
Silly. At best.
- Status